Defense Giving Way or Giving up on Play - Interference
 

Was confused when a coach debating a call on interference stated that F4 gave up or gave way on the ball when R1 ran in front of him and that it should not be interference. I am PU and my partner in B position, ruled interference on R1. Ground ball to F4 who moves forward to field the ball, 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. HC asks BU if the runner touched F4. He said no and stated that there should be no interference since there was no contact and F4 GAVE UP on the ball meaning that he no longer opted to field the ball and without someone attempting to field the ball and no contact therefore no interference. Partner came to me for help and I agreed with him on the interference that the runner either, confused, hindered or obstructed F4 from fielding the ball and that R1 does not have to make contact to cause interference. HC disagreed, that there must be contact. We talked a bit and then proceeded to play ball. Must say this competitive youth game of AAA 12's was a great game some tough calls but both coaches were professional and respectful on close and questionable calls. So, the question is this Give Way statement. Reread the rules that night, searched some internet sights and could find nothing in this regard of a fielder giving way or giving up on the ball (yielding to the runner?) Any quick insight on this. Thanks in advance!:)

I agree with the coach on this one. Unless the runner verbally said something to the fielder (ie "I got it"), I don't have interference when there is no contact.

-Josh

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.

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.

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!

I have not heard of this

From your OP


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

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

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.

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.

Mrumpiresir,

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.

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

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

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.

Absolute BS

The question is not what the runner did or did not do. In your judgement did he impede, obstruct, hinder or confuse the fielder? Contact is not required for this to happen.
Yes to any one of those, you have interference otherwise, nothing at all.

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.