Obstruction/Interference

[gmtomko]

On a close play at first base, the throw is a bit off and carries the first baseman's glove so that it is in the base path just as the runner arrives at the base. The runner collides with the first baseman and knocks him over and causes the ball to come out of the glove. Would you rule this obstruction and award first to the runner, interference on the runner and call him out or make no interference/obstruction call and the runner is safe at first?

In the few times I have had to rule on this, I have gone with interference on the batter-runner.

[gsf23]

On a situation like that I think that I would just rule the runner safe and call it incidental contact. I don't think you can call interference on the runner, they have a right to go to the bag. The defense should make a better throw next time and they won't have that problem.

[Tim C]

Welcome to the board.

We basically killed this one last year.

There are two schools of thought:

Some agree with the obstruction/interference interpretation.

Others feel that:

1) A runner is allowed to enter the inside of the diamond during the last step and one half. So his position is legal.

2) Now comes the hard part, IF the fielder has secured the ball (caught, gloved or whatever term the MM's want to use) ANYTHING that happens after that is unimportant. There is no rule that says "how long" a fielder needs to secure the ball in this type play.

When a ball is caught (or whatever term you want) the out is recorded. We do not have to have ANY of the determiners of catching a ball "in flight."

The ruling would be done the instant F3 secures the ball and touches the base. That's it . . . that's the LIST. The collision means nothing EVEN IF THE BALL COMES FREE.

The runner would be out. Remember this is a "force play" and NOT a tag play. There is a difference.

The play would not be either obstruction or interference. It would be simply an out.

Tee

[gmtomko]

Thanks to both of you for giving me your insights. Given that these situations are usually 'bang-bang', it is sometimes hard to know for sure whether the ball was/is ever secure in the glove.

I can search through the posts of the thread that was killed on this to see where people are coming from.

Thanks.

[Tim C]

that is where the discussion centered.

Some thought, as you do, that there could be a problem deciding if there was secure possesion and others felt that was a pretty simple call.

It was very spirited.

I ask only that you think of it this way for a second:

When F3 catches a normal, good quality throw he "normally" is coming off the base. (Age old argument of when he is off but that is a different thread).

We allow him to have only a minimal time of having the ball secure and his foot actually on the base . . . some look at this call in the same way:

If the ball enters the glove and base is touched the play has ended and the runner is OUT!.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Apr 15th, 2003 at 02:51 PM]

[Rich]

Tee,

I went to a clinic recently taught by Phil Janssen, a former AAA umpire and until recently in charge of evaluations of ML and AAA umpires.

He made it quite clear that the concept of voluntary release applied on a thrown ball as well -- that got my interest as I had never heard that interpretation before.

His thinking? Possession doesn't happen when the ball is secured, it happens when the fielder demonstrates possession.

I posed this play to him -- F1 covering on a ground ball to F3. F1 catches the ball and touches first base and is one step beyond first base when the BR bumps F1 (no interference/obstruction, both players doing the "right thing") and the ball falls. Janssen said that the BR should be ruled safe because he didn't demonstrate possession through the entire play.

Agree or disagree, it is an interesting thing to think about.

Regards,
Rich

[Tim C]

Looks like an e-mail to Jim Evans is in the future.

Phil's opinion 'appears' to fly in the face of basic umpire intrepretations.

Never, has anyone said that, on a force play, that a fielder must retain possesion sfter the out is made.

Interesting, I may be off base but will search for further information. Thanks for the heads up.

Tee

[Rich]

Tee,

Done. I'll let you know once I hear back.

Rich

[Andy]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Tee,

I went to a clinic recently taught by Phil Janssen, a former AAA umpire and until recently in charge of evaluations of ML and AAA umpires.

He made it quite clear that the concept of voluntary release applied on a thrown ball as well -- that got my interest as I had never heard that interpretation before.

His thinking? Possession doesn't happen when the ball is secured, it happens when the fielder demonstrates possession.

I posed this play to him -- F1 covering on a ground ball to F3. F1 catches the ball and touches first base and is one step beyond first base when the BR bumps F1 (no interference/obstruction, both players doing the "right thing") and the ball falls. Janssen said that the BR should be ruled safe because he didn't demonstrate possession through the entire play.

Agree or disagree, it is an interesting thing to think about.

Regards,
Rich

The problem with this interpretation is at what point do you cut it off? Your example stated "one step beyond the bag", what if F1, after touching first, turns and trots back toward the mound and when he is within a step of the mound the ball slips out of his mitt? He did not release the ball voluntarily. Is the BR still safe?

The interpretation on voluntary release that I was given is to determine when a voluntary release "can" happen. In the situation presented, could F1 have reached into his mitt up until the time he was bumped and thrown the ball? If so, possession was established.

[Jim Porter]

In a long-ago interview with Rick Roder, he discussed with me this exact situation. He indicated that he, and most professional umpires he knew, would require voluntary release to ensure possession has taken place. The presentation of his answer was in the context of allowing the play to finish before deciding on a call, and how professional umpires always do that.

Chris Jones of the PBUC, on the other hand, rather dismissed Rick Roder's answer, and indicated the opposite to be the PBUC's position.

In a follow-up to Rick Roder regarding Chris Jones' opinion, Roder indicated that the difference in answers was indicative of the difference in roles each of them play. While it is Roder's mission to label and define with ultimate accuracy everything an umpires does on the field, it is Chris Jones' job to be more diplomatic and keep from pre-impeaching an umpire under his oversight.

The bottom line? This is yet another example of a call that will be made depending on where the umpire was schooled, who his instructors were, and what his attitude is about that particular rule. I tend to believe Rick Roder when he says most professional umpires would wait for the whole play to finish before deciding if possession had taken place. But at the same time, there are so many possibilities that could occur in a play like that one that expecting a definitive ruling from the PBUC reflecting Roder's claim just won't happen.

[Tim C]

Thank you for an excellent answer that touches both sides of the issue.

A fair answer to an interesting situation.

Tew