Interference or good base-running??
 

Game situation....R1 on 2nd, ball hit to shortstop (F6)....R1 almost stops (dances) in front of F6 so F6 can't get a clear view of the ground ball (they never touch each other).:eek: R1 proceeds to third just before the ball almost hits him. F6 makes and error....Should have interference been called on R1 or is it good base-running?:confused: No call was made, DC was mad.

I was the OC and told my runner I thought he should have been called for interference......was I right?

Coach K

Yes, it sounds like he interfered with F6's chance to field the ball cleanly. So, from what it sounds like, I would have INT. The error is irrelevant. As long as F6 had a chance at the ball and was in/getting into position to field it, then I have INT.

If he does it with no one having a chance at the ball, then I would have no INT. But, that doesn't sound like the case here. It sounds like he was in position and R2 interfered with his opportunity. So, I have INT on this play.

Yes.

I agree, contact between players or with the ball, is not a requirement for interference

If the runner stops intentionally to block F6's view, then it's interference. If he is just running to 3rd and stops to avoid the ball in the normal course of his running, or jumps over the ball in his normal course of running, then it's not interference. Sounds like INT from how you described his actions.

If the runner 'hinders or impedes' the fielders ability to make a play it is interference. It sounds like your runner got away with one. I would not make a habit of trying this, but from you telling your runner what you did, I so not think that is an issue.

From the JEA:

"Any action, however, that is taken by the runner which is palpably designed to interfere should be ruled interference. This includes timing his advancement to intentionally confuse or hinder the fielder."

UMP153 Thanks for the correction on my wording. Rule book in car vs Computer room. :)

Yeah, that.:cool:

Yes! If I am the BU, I turn two on this one.

If you call 2 outs on this, head for the hills. I will be if I am your partner.

How are you going to get two, Kimosabe? You make-um up rule?:confused:

Oh, runner on second only. I thought Runners on 1st and 2nd.

Bring out Emily Litella, again.

Doesn't matter. You can only get two outs under OBR if the runner willfully and deliberately interferes ... with the obvious attempt to break up a DP. That's a pretty high standard.

I was thinking FED.

What he said.

We had this play with runners at first and second, we met almost as soon as the ball was dead, and immediately decided not to give them two. My partner had the bases and he had the interference, which was executed by the runner exactly like the play that kheisner described. But the ball was a medium speed chopper that the shortstop would normally have to charge and throw to first to get one only. The runner stopped his charge and made him miss the ball. So my partner called me out and we met and only gave them one based on the type of play. If it's a hard ground ball: two.

It was one of my all-time favorite rulings, because it made the coach of the defensive team come out. He is the most laughable little clown of all the old time coaches in the entire area. Even other coaches detest him. So we each get a dose of his clown act and it was worth it, because it made our post-game a non-stop laugher.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...kguy/394-1.jpg
He's the kind of guy who can't even take off his shades and smile for the official coach's portrait [at his fifth school in ten years].