The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 14, 2003, 04:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 230
Red face

BU for a men's "wreck" game last night.

R2- 2 out slow roller to F6 charging R2 runs the baseline until he reaches the path of the ball stops really early to let the ball "go by" he said that what he was doing, but distracts F6 in his attempt to field the ball. At about the age of 40 F6 wasn't going to charge into R2 like a "skilled" player would. Called R2 out on the interference even though no contact was made. Probably wouldn't have called it at a higher level, but then again it wouldn't happen at a higher level. R2 then bi**hed for about 2 min but I didn't dump him. I'm not a nice guy (early beer) no way.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 14, 2003, 06:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 813
If he stopped prior to the reaching the path of the ball going to F6, then he likely was either attempting to avoid the ball or to delay his timing to better hide his attempt to interfere. Other actions might indicate attempt to interfere, but from what you''ve posted you've not indicated any such other actions. Merely being near the protected fielder is seldom ruled interference without some other evidence of an infraction.

By stopping before entering the path of the ball, R2 has bought himself the excuse that, indeed, he was worried about the ball striking him---even if he wasn't. By delaying to allow the ball to pass in front of him, he has likely putting himself in jeopardy in reaching a base safely. I don't call interference when the runner is doing nothing more than what he's supposed to be doing---attempting to safely acquire a base AND avoid being hit by the batted ball.

What I watch for is the runner who mambos in front of F6 and then ends it just before the ball arrives near him---allowing the ball to pass behind him or through his legs. IMO, the mambo only takes time, and since he chose to break the path of the ball, that proves he wasn't worried about the ball striking him. Thus, his mambo was an obvious attempt to obstruct the vision of F6----INTERFERENCE.

Teams argue interference calls---whether the call is correct or incorrect.
I've seen them run into or bowl over fielders fielding batted balls and still argue. If you call interference, expect an argument---but the argument doesn't mean the call is wrong.

While this call can be made by either official, PU generally has the better look at the entire play and the action as it develops and happens. He should jump on the call if it happens since most of the action is behind the BU's back if BU started in C position. Frequently BU sees only the remnants of the action and is left guessing about the details of what just occurred behind him. If I'm the BU and uncertain, I'll not call interference. I feel if interference occurred, then the PU should have made the call after seeing the action. I'll not call a runner out on a "guess" of what occurred. If I'm certain I saw and judge interference, then I'll call it from either position.



Freix

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 14, 2003, 08:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally posted by tiger49
BU for a men's "wreck" game last night.

R2- 2 out slow roller to F6 charging R2 runs the baseline until he reaches the path of the ball stops really early to let the ball "go by" he said that what he was doing, but distracts F6 in his attempt to field the ball. At about the age of 40 F6 wasn't going to charge into R2 like a "skilled" player would. Called R2 out on the interference even though no contact was made. Probably wouldn't have called it at a higher level, but then again it wouldn't happen at a higher level. R2 then bi**hed for about 2 min but I didn't dump him. I'm not a nice guy (early beer) no way.
I guess the unspoken question here is "Did I make the right call, given there was no contact?" My answer to that would be an unequivocal "Yes", so long as you believe the R2's actions hindered, impeded or confused the F6 in his legitimate attempt to field the batted ball.

Like BFair, I wouldn't hesitate to make a call of "Time! That's interference", even though no contact was made, IF the runner does something other than he was supposed to do - and sometimes even if he doesn't. The classics are:
  • Deliberately delaying the advance in order to arrive at a point on the base path at the same time as the ball,

  • Hurdling the ball in front of the fielder, or

  • Continuing to run the base path in front of the fielder when the fielder is in close proximity to field the ball.
The last two are the most common, IMO. Most runners believe that they have a right to the base path at all times, even when the fielder needs to field the ball. They don't. The runner has an obligation to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. If he cannot run in FRONT on the base path without confusing the fielder, then he should leave the base path and run BEHIND the fielder or even wait until the ball has passed the base path before continuing to advance.

Remember, the rules allow that making contact IS interference (OBR 7.09l), but they certainly do NOT preclude interference when no contact has occurred (OBR 7.08b).

Hope this helps

Cheers
__________________
Warren Willson
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1