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.

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

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

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

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

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

What would be enough?

Umpire judgment.