Interference, Obstruction, or Incidental Contact?

[tankmjg24]

Alright guys, so this did not happen to me nor was I at the field. As a matter of fact I am in a different time zone than where the incident occurred. A good friend of mine was on the plate and he called me to see whether they got the call correct or not.

OBR rules (Little League) with a 4 man umpiring crew on a 12U game. There are 0 outs with R2. Batter squares around to bunt and the pitch is high and tight. The batter still attempts the bunt and is successful, however he is kind of going backwards due to the location and does not get a good run out of the box. The ball goes about 5 ft in front of home. F2 starts after the ball and the BR take offs for 1st and they make contact with both falling to the ground. F1 ends up picking up the baseball and tagging BR who is laying on the ground. R2 advances to 3rd.

Both coaches come out to argue and both coaches want interference called (poor offensive coach apparently does not know what obstruction is haha). The defense wanted interference on BR so that R2 would have to return to 2nd. The offense wanted obstruction on F2 and wanted BR on 1st and R2 on 3rd. The umpires huddled and ended up sticking with the no call and their rationale was that both were doing what they were supposed to do.

Now there are a few different rules floating through my mind that could possibly support a no call and possibly support an interference call. I see no support that obstruction could be called here as F2 is the fielder that I would protect, not F1.

So what do you all go with here? BR out for interference with R2 returning to 2nd or incidental contact?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by tankmjg24

Alright guys, so this did not happen to me nor was I at the field. As a matter of fact I am in a different time zone than where the incident occurred. A good friend of mine was on the plate and he called me to see whether they got the call correct or not.

OBR rules (Little League) with a 4 man umpiring crew on a 12U game. There are 0 outs with R2. Batter squares around to bunt and the pitch is high and tight. The batter still attempts the bunt and is successful, however he is kind of going backwards due to the location and does not get a good run out of the box. The ball goes about 5 ft in front of home. F2 starts after the ball and the BR take offs for 1st and they make contact with both falling to the ground. F1 ends up picking up the baseball and tagging BR who is laying on the ground. R2 advances to 3rd.

Both coaches come out to argue and both coaches want interference called (poor offensive coach apparently does not know what obstruction is haha). The defense wanted interference on BR so that R2 would have to return to 2nd. The offense wanted obstruction on F2 and wanted BR on 1st and R2 on 3rd. The umpires huddled and ended up sticking with the no call and their rationale was that both were doing what they were supposed to do.

Now there are a few different rules floating through my mind that could possibly support a no call and possibly support an interference call. I see no support that obstruction could be called here as F2 is the fielder that I would protect, not F1.

So what do you all go with here? BR out for interference with R2 returning to 2nd or incidental contact?

I don't have my books or interps handy, but I believe that the umpires got it right. Both BR and F2 doing what they are supposed to. Tough break for BR, but he's out. R2 advances on his merry way.

[zm1283]

This is in at least one of the rule books. Plays around home plate are different than anywhere else. If both players are doing what they're supposed to and nothing is intentional, play on.

[mbyron]

Sounds like a classic tangle/untangle, except the little kids fell down. Oh well. Agree with consensus that this is nothing.

PU will save himself a good deal of headache by signaling safe and announcing, "That's nothing!"

[jdmara]

Play on. I've got nothing

-Josh

[MD Longhorn]

I hate the phrase, "They were just doing what they were supposed to do," as it's usually a crutch for, "I'm not sure what the rules so I'll call nothing."

HOWEVER,

The tangle/untangle of batter/catcher on a bunt or shortly hit ball is the ONE time that phrase is appropriate. On this play, umpire should signify that he saw the action and ruled it nothing as described by mbyron - if he does so, the argument is likely MUCH shorter.

[lawump]

"Hello Mr. Fisk, my name is Mr. Armbrister."

Larry Barnett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now known as the "Barnett rule".

Proper umpire mechanics: "That's nothing! That's nothing!" while giving the safe signal.

[tankmjg24]

Well good. My thoughts were correct and backed up by a rule. My response was that this was incidental contact unless he felt that intent was established in which case interference would be called. I also suggested using the safe signal to show everyone that you have a no call.