Defense Giving Way or Giving up on Play - Interference

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jdmara

On a ground ball between 1st and 2nd, R1 (while in the baseline) stutter steps in front of F4 but does not make contact with F4 nor the batted ball...you are going to call interference on the runner?!? No way.

Stutter steps between F4 and the ball (possibly screening F4 from seeing the ball)? Yes, I have interference on this.


On the OP -- you need to decide if F4 "stopped" *because* of the runner or just decided that where he was was the "best" place to make the play. The former is interference, the latter isn't

[jdmara]

After much deliberation, I could see calling interference in the original post. I'm willing to admit that I may change my mind

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Stutter steps between F4 and the ball (possibly screening F4 from seeing the ball)? Yes, I have interference on this.

Bob, would you agree that distance from R1 and F4 have to be considered in the situation I brought up? For instance, if there is 20 feet between R1 and F4...I don't believe it is a non-baseball play to "screen" the ball by a stutter/lag/delay/etc moving from the visual path of the fielder. I think it naturally occurs when there is a ball hit near a baserunner who advances. However, if there is 5 feet...Ok, I could see someone's justification. Maybe I'm just off my rocket on this topic. Thanks as always gentleman

-Josh

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Bob, would you agree that distance from R1 and F4 have to be considered in the situation I brought up? For instance, if there is 20 feet between R1 and F4...I don't believe it is a non-baseball play to "screen" the ball by a stutter/lag/delay/etc moving from the visual path of the fielder.

No, I would not agree.

If the runner "delays" to let the ball pass in front of him -- that's a legal play. He didn't screen the defense, and his actions were to avoid being hit by the batted ball.

If he stops in the path of the ball and then continues on or jumps up at the last second to avoid the ball, then I'm getting the out. He meant to "interfere" with the play, and I'm going to reward him for his efforts.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No, I would not agree.

If the runner "delays" to let the ball pass in front of him -- that's a legal play. He didn't screen the defense, and his actions were to avoid being hit by the batted ball.

If he stops in the path of the ball and then continues on or jumps up at the last second to avoid the ball, then I'm getting the out. He meant to "interfere" with the play, and I'm going to reward him for his efforts.

Ok...Thanks Bob

-Josh

[JPaco54]

[QUOTE=UmpJM (nee CoachJM);598765]Mrumpiresir,

While you don't NEED contact for interference in this sitch, it sure helps. In order to call the Int. here you would need to further judge that there WOULD have been contact had the runner's actions FORCED the fielder to abort his attempt to field the batted ball - rather than the fielder stopping because he thought their MIGHT be contact.


When I observed F4 pull up at the last minute due to what I judged was his attempt to avoid getting hit by R1 even though R1 was trying to avoid contact, we determined that this was impeding F4 from fielding the ball. Therefore INT. There was much discussion after the call and this is where the coaches deemed NO INT due to the fact F4 ABORTED or Gave UP on his attempt. I see nothing in the rules that refers to a fielder "Aborting or Giving up" on a ball that would negate INT.

[johnnyg08]

based on what you're saying he gave up because of the actions of the baserunner. The baserunner impeded the fielder's ability to field the ball...baseball is not a collision sport.

[PeteBooth]

We are not MINDREADERS. How do we know that F4 gave up on the play because of the actions of the base-runner. Perhaps F4 wanted to stay PUT and felt more comfortable fielding the ball where he was vs. charging the ball etc.

The point is We do NOT Know. if a fielder does not charge the ball because he THOUGHT there was a possibility of a collision then you will start calling interference on just about every play involving a situation where the runner stops short and trys to avoid the ball and the fielder stops his progress.

baseball is not a collision sport

This is a MISNOMER and unfortunately many feel as you do meaning in today's game whenever there is any contact WHATSOEVER, people want something called. Today baseball out of all the major sports has become "wussified"

Pete Booth

[johnnyg08]

Not necessarily Pete...there is a difference between collision and contact. people want "something" called all the time...you know that. If a car pulls out in front of you and you're about to T-bone the car...do you keep going simply because you have the "right of way"? Or do you stop to avoid the car that's impeding your ability to move forward? Where in my post did I say that just because baseball is not a collsion sport that we have to call something...in the same breath...do we want coaches teaching their kids to rip right through a runner, simply because he has a right to field the ball?

That's where playing experience ties into umpiring...you're right, we don't know exactly what he's thinking...but if an umpire understands baseball, the umpire might have a pretty good idea what's going on and might be able to make the right call based on that...the rules allow us some opportunities for us to make judgements based upon what we see...then we make those judgements based on our previous knowledge.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If he stops in the path of the ball and then continues on or jumps up at the last second to avoid the ball, then I'm getting the out. He meant to "interfere" with the play, and I'm going to reward him for his efforts.

Agreed. IMO not enough umpires call this INT.

Bob, do you wait to see whether the runner's acts actually hindered the defense? I watch and see whether the fielder fields the ball cleanly, especially if there's a chance of a double play.

[RogersUmp]

What would be enough?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RogersUmp

What would be enough?

Umpire judgment.