Int or not?
 

Posted this on another board, but curious what some of you all thought.

Bases loaded, 2 out. Ball hit to F5, R2 takes a couple of strides, stops directly in front of F5, turns facing ball coming at him, then turns at the last second to avoid ball and continues to run to 3B.

There is no question in anyones mind (except the umpires in this game) that he is trying to cause SS to miss this ball.

SS fields ball cleanly and throws to 1B, where BR barely beats the throw.
INT was not called.

Now to my questions:

Would you call INT after the play had ended?
If you would, how would you respond to the OM when he asked why INT was called?

If the runner tried to distract (it appeared as though he altered his path to distract F6)the fielder from being able to field the ball, I'm calling INT here...but, I didn't see the play...so that's what I would've done based upon what you're describing.

My partner called this in a recent game. I loved it. The runner literally stopped and let the ball go through his legs and then continued to third. The batter/runner was barely safe, so he called it.

It's a ballsy call.

Kevin,

Did the OM question his call? What did he ask and what was your partners reply?

bigda65,

No, I would call it as soon as I judged it was interference. (As I'm picturing your description, that would be before the ball reached the fielder.)

My response to the OC would be "In my judgement, your runner intentionally hindered the fielder's attempt to field the batted ball."

If you're going to call interference, you call it when you see it. You don't wait to see the outcome of the play.

JM

JM,

I would have called it immediately if not sooner ;)

After your "in my judgement....."

But blue he fielded it cleanly and then threw to first how was he hindered??

Coach, the fielder's ability to complete the play despite your runner's hindrance does not excuse his interference.

Let's play baseball.

JM

These types of plays are HTBT and are based on judgement.

Would a play like this ever result in us calling out the runner closest to home? Assume we're calling INT on a play. New thread?

Not on runner's lane INT though right?

Or are you saying, call it, if they make the play they're intending to make, then we nullify the INT? (minus anything malicious)

Calling out ONLY the runner nearest home? Never -- the runner who interferes is out.

If it was the BR and IF you were going to get two outs on the play (for "willfull and deliberate attempt to prevent a DP"), then you also get the runner closest to home.

Thanks Bob.

johnny,

Not sure what you're getting at here. I don't think I would treat a runner's lane interference call any differently in this regard, and were I to call it and the defense were able to complete the play (not likely, but possible, I guess) I would certainly NOT "nullify" the interference.

The only sitch I can think of where that would be proper is on a BI (or UI, I guess) with the catcher's throw to retire a runner. If the initial play is successful, the interference is "disregarded".

Anything else, I'm sticking with the interference - which means there's an out AND any remaining runners return.

JM

Not disagreeing, but can you or somebody else list a case play so I can read about it?

I guess I was referring to a play where F2 would throw to F3 and we have runner lane INT...if F3 successfully fields the ball and we have B/R out at 1B...there was INT, but he made the play...so you call the INT and return runners on that type of play?

He questioned it for a few minutes, and then the defensive coach wanted an automatic double play.

The OM asked why it was interference if he didn't even touch the ball or the fielder. My partner answered that he denied the fielder an opportunity to see the ball sooner and make the play. He called it, but the shortstop continued and made the play. He took good command of the call and the description. Good command for a kid, that is. ;)

The defensive coach wound up being more of a pain in the a$$ about the automatic double play (no chance in hell of two on this play).

Please describe a specific play where that happens -- I'm having trouble envisioning the BR hindering F3, but F3 "successfully fields the ball" (by which I assume you mean catches the throw).

Yes. Doesn't the provision for runner's lane interference deal with F3's ability to field the throw?

Example: Bunt down 1BL, F2 fields, throws, B/R is inside the runner's lane about 20 ft from 1B, F2 successfully threads the needle by throwing the ball over B/R's left shoulder and F3 catches the ball for a 2-3 putout.

If the ball goes off of B/R's helmet and out into RF...you have running lane INT right?

So...I'm asking the other poster if he would call it before he saw the result of the attempted play?

If the fielder had to pull up instead of charging a ground ball (which any coach with 1/3 of a brain should be teaching his kids to do) to avoid a runner intentionally hovering in front of a grounder, it doesn't matter how cleanly the ball was fielded.