Defense Giving Way or Giving up on Play - Interference

[socalblue1]

We virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the protected fielder on a batted ball.

Ask yourself this: did the fielder pull up to avoid an imminent collision (IE: there would have been contact had the fielder not stopped)? If the answer is yes we have interference by the runner. No actual contact or intent on by the runner is required to make this call.

Should the runner clearly avoid the fielder (alter his path, stop, etc) I would be far less likely to make an interference call should the fielder pull up.

In the end, it's a HTBT situation.

[johnnyg08]

in a related rule, can the defense obstruct w/o contact...yes they can. I too, think that there can be interference w/o contact...but to comment on this play, I'd have to see it.

[JPaco54]

I appreciate your insight and it is one of those HTBT moments. It was a tough call since the runner tried to avoid contact, but the BU judged that F4 pulled up due to avoid collision and I agreed.

What about this statement - Giving Way or Giving Up by the defense on the play therefore no interference. Have any of you heard of this? Thanks!

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by JPaco54

Giving Way or Giving Up by the defense on the play therefore no interference.

I have not heard of this

[PeteBooth]

From your OP

R1 tries to avoid fielder, stops, stutters then tries to move toward infield grass but F4 to avoid collision pulls up on the ball and ball goes thru his legs. BU calls interference on runner

You said it yourself R1 tried to avoid fielder. In fact you used the word STOPS. I realize as with many of these OP's we WHTBT but if the runner STOPS then I have a heard time ruling interference.

The reason you do not need Contact concerning interference is because it's possible for the runner to SCREEN the fielder. On a batted ball we as umpires decide which player we are going to protect and that protection lasts up until the follow through of the ball. However, we must also judge that the runner in fact interfered.

The runner stopped and as mentioned I have a hard time ruling interference when a runner stops unless he STOPS to screen the fielder and makes no effort to avoid the fielder. Contact is not a requirement for interference but in this case I think it does.

Pete Booth

[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. The OP is a similar situation. If there is not contact made or verbal interference, it's not interference in my opinion. Edit: I would never say never on a situation but I could imagine very few circumstances that this would be interference. Of course it's a HTBT situation

-Josh

[ozzy6900]

I agree with Pete here. R1 obviously showed that he was trying to avoid interfering. I think that I would have just given the safe sign and the verbal, "That's Nothing!"

Oh and 12 year olds are not competitive. Some are better than others but 12 year old baseball is still 12 year old baseball.

[Mrumpiresir]

The OP said fielder stopped to avoid the collision. Are you saying R1 did not hinder the fielder? I've got interference. I guess a smart fielder should have run into the runner drawing the call, possibly injuring himself or the runner. Interference by R1.

[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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

We virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the protected fielder on a batted ball.

Ask yourself this: did the fielder pull up to avoid an imminent collision (IE: there would have been contact had the fielder not stopped)? If the answer is yes we have interference by the runner. No actual contact or intent on by the runner is required to make this call.

Should the runner clearly avoid the fielder (alter his path, stop, etc) I would be far less likely to make an interference call should the fielder pull up.

In the end, it's a HTBT situation.

I agree completely. The burden is on the runner to avoid the fielder and avoid affecting the fielding attempt. The umpire will have to judge whether the fielder misplayed the ball because of the runner, or whether the runner simply happened to be nearby. Only the former is INT.