Defense Giving Way or Giving up on Play - Interference

[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

[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.