Weird Obstruction/Interference Play

[Bfair]

Originally posted by gmtomko
H.S. game, 2 outs, runner on 2nd. Ball is popped high on left side of IF, both F5 and F6 are calling for it. Runner is moving in the baseline to third. Just as F6 settles under the ball and catches the ball, outside of the baseline, F5 collides into F6 and the force of that collision causes F6 to collide with R1. The result of that collision is that F6 drops the ball.

As you describe the play, I'd not rule interference.
However, in support of your call there could have been other factors to consider.

Evans states in several areas of the JEA:

The runner has not only a legal right but a legal obligation to go out of a direct line to avoid the fielder.

A batter has an inherent obligation to avoid the catcher fielding the ball just as a runner must avoid an infielder in the act of fielding. [my emphasis]

If the ball had been misplayed by the fielder but within his reach, the fielder would still have been protected and the runner is still obligated to avoid contacting him during his further effort at fielding the batted ball.

In your example, if the fielder after contacting his teammate was altered ever so slightly that he was still "within a reach" of his original location, then I'd likely rule interference. The runner should have been avoiding such proximity to a fielder catching a batted ball no differently than if the ball had dropped from the glove to an area 3ft. in front of the fielder. If the contact of F5 and F6 caused the protected fielder to move beyond that distance of a "reach of the fielder", then I'd likely not call interference and consider the contact between fielders as the cause of the trainwreck.

I've often seen in such instances with 2 outs runners slow down and alter their path slightly in an attempt to hinder the fielder by running as close to him as possible. When the 3rd out appears imminent, runners often feel they have little to lose and everything to gain if they can intimidate the fielder and cause him to drop the ball. I doubt if I'm the only umpire to have witnessed that type action.

The intent of the rule is that the fielder should not have to worry about getting runover by an advancing runner when he is fielding a batted ball. The runner is obligated to avoid the possibility of interfering by steering clear of the area necessary to field that batted ball---whether that batted ball is caught cleanly or deflected within the fielder's reach.


Just my opinion,

Freix