Defense Giving Way or Giving up on Play - Interference

[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.

[UmpJM]

Mrumpiresir,

Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir

The OP said fielder stopped to avoid the collision. Are you saying R1 did not hinder the fielder?

It is likely that is the proper call described in the OP. None of us other than JPaco saw the play, so I certainly can't say for sure.

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.

If the runner obviously alters his path or timing to maximize the fielder's difficulty, the fielder gets some benefit of the doubt. If the runner is making a "good faith" effort to advance and avoid the fielder, AND there is no contact, the runner gets the benefit of the doubt.

I've got interference.

You will definitely be having a conversation following this call. Be prepared for it.

I guess a smart fielder should have run into the runner drawing the call, possibly injuring himself or the runner. Interference by R1.

That's pretty much what the fielder SHOULD have done. Baseball can be a dangerous game. When I was coaching, I instructed my fielder's to field as if the runner weren't there - because it was the runner's responsibility to not be there.

I can only think of one instance where I saw this called without contact, and it was pretty obvious.

JM

[Mrumpiresir]

I'm sure this is a HTBT. I think attempting to avoid hindering the fielder is not a valid argument, he MUST avoid hindering the fielder. These are 12 year olds, and i'm going to assume R1 did not intentionally interfere but this is where the runner needs to learn that the fielder is to be given an unhindered opportunity to field the ball. This would be my response to the offensive coach following the interference call.

[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

[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

[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.