Why Wasn't This Interference?
 

From the Nats/Phils game on Monday (sorry, still don't know how to embed videos here):

MLB.com Gameday | MLB.com: Gameday

Click on the video on the right entitled Brown's RBI single.

F3 had to steer clear from the advancing BR before attempting to field the ball. Yes, it was deflected by F1, but I thought deflected balls only alleviate base runners if they get hit by them. They still have to avoid fielders who are fielding them, correct?

I have Brown i the running lane until he had no where to go but in to avoid F3. I wouldn't rule interference here, either. F3 could have charged the ball and not been in the running lane (and possibly gotten the out) so to me, F3 blew the play but interference, no.

The running lane isn't relevant on this play -- it's only relevant on throws to first base. The BR has to avoid the fielder, even if it takes him out of the running lane.

RLI isn't applicable here, this is a fair batted ball being fileded not being thrown.

The runner was not contacted by the ball, and was doing what he was supposed to. Im not giving the defense relief here for not fielding the ball. Granted it was difficult for the pitcher but nobody says it has to be easy. Had F3 headed directly for the ball and then contact was made by the BR, there may have been interference. But F3 chose to put hisself in a position that nade things more difficult to execute the play. And again there was contact with the ball and runner.

Don't take the sh!tty end of stick
 

Generally speaking, the fielder is protected when he is in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball (deflected or not). The fielder is NOT protected when he is "en route" to fielding the ball. Moreover, it looks like the B/R was almost past F3 so I don't think he would have been able to make a play anyways. Calling interference without any contact is pretty rare unless the runner goes out of his way to make it difficult for the fielder... which I don't think was the case here.

No, he didn't; he CHOSE to. Had LaRoche chosen to go immediately to the deflected ball instead of yielding to the runner when he was not required to do so, he may have drawn an interference call if Brown had maintained the same path instead of veering into foul territory to avoid the fielder.

It wasn't interference because Brown didn't interfere.

I was using the running lane as a reference to where Brown was.... probably a bad choice of words.

+1

You're kidding - right? I hope.

If not, I can block off a fielder heading toward the intersection with the ball and not be guilty of interference.

So, it's your position that the fielder has to make a bonafide attempt to get to the ball and not avoid a collision? How does what LaRoche did not qualify for being hindered or impeded?

Please, newbie readers ... recognize this for what it is.

The fielder is ABSOLUTELY protected "en-route" to fielding a ball.

As to why this was not INT in the OP? I can only feel that the umpire on the spot did not feel the fielder was impeded. In super slo mo replay, I'm not sure I agree with him ... but this one definitely could have gone either way without much complaint from me.

LaRoche choose to go in foul territory and wait for the ball to come to him. If he choose to go there because he wantd to avoid the runner then shame on him because he had the right of way and didn't use.

Interference does not have to be intentional to be called however, it has to happen and be discernable by the actions of the players and not by the umpire trying to guess what the player was thinking.

Did the BR interfere with the ball or the fielding of the ball based upon the position the fielder choose to field it. NO

We are there to make a ruling based upon what happened not what could have happened.

If an umpire needs "super slo mo replay" to make this call, then 1). he needs more experience and 2) he shouldn't be making the call.

Considering the MLB umpire did not make this call ... I disagree with your assessment.

Seems to me your trying to guess why LaRoche went into foul territory. One could equally assume that he went into foul territory to avoid getting plowed into by the BR, who made no attempt to veer away from LaRoche as LaRoche approached the ball.

Suffice it to say this could have gone either way, and I would have chosen to give the defense the benefit of the doubt here.

Is there a new link to this play? The link supplied seems to have changed.

It is still there, click on the link on the right "Brown's RBI single"

MLB.com Gameday | MLB.com: Gameday

Really Manny! Why do you insist on inserting yourself into the game. Thats like saying I will call the runner safe because I know he can run faster than that.

Nobody comes to the games to watch you umpire!!!

jice, I'm completely confused by your replies now.

You tell me that if an umpire needs slo mo replay to make this interference call, he needs remedial help... then you tell Manny he's wrong for making an interference call.

Hopefully I can explain.

Manny is trying to say that the fielder choose to go over the foul line and field the deflected batted fair ball because he did not want to get in the way of the BR. "His interpretation" seems to imply that because he saw the F3 avoid the runner, it was to aviod interference and therefore is, interference.

I am saying that interference can not be called on an assumption that F3 would have been interferred with, if he wasn't interferred with. It has to happen and if it does (intentional or not) then it would be interference.

You implied that when you watched the slo-mo replay, you also believed this could be interference. I am saying fast-mo or slo-mo, it was never interference because the fielder never took the route where he was "ABSOLUTELY protected "en-route" to fielding a ball".

Because, that's what we're supposed to do when we use our judgment, is it not?

You say I'm inserting myself into the game by deciding LaRoche was affected by the runner. Are you not inserting yourself into the game by deciding LaRoche veered off into foul territory because he chose to go there and wait? How do you know that's what he intended on doing all along? If that's really the case, why didn't he just beeline it in that direction instead of heading toward the ball and then turning off?

Yes, he had the right of way toward the ball, but he decided at the last second to avoid the runner. That, to me, is enough evidence to warrant an interference call. Doing anything to avoid a runner while making a play on a batted ball is interference.

So you seem to be requiring the fielder to run through a charging runner in order to get an interference call. This one is simple - the runner was where the fielder needed to go to field the ball. As soon as the fielder changed paths to avoid the runner, it was interference.

By your logic, you could never have obstruction either if a runner veered around a fielder. After all, you don't KNOW that he didn't just choose to take a crooked path to the base.

No I don't think F3 is going to "TRY" and get an interference call, I am sure he is more interested in fielding the ball. However had he tried and the runner collided with him, yes then there would have been interference. But that is not how it happened and that is our job to rulle on what happened.

Now as far as obstruction, I don't know if he "just choose to take a crooked path to the base" or not but, I can see that as a result of the fielder hanging out or obstructing, the runner was delayed in getting to the next base. Root cause is obvious. Assuming gets you in trouble.

Well put.

Rita

Hmmm.

OK, A) Why say Try, and put it in quotes even ... when I didn't SAY or even IMPLY that F3 was trying for anything. Replace "for him to get an interference call" with "for you to call interference" if you need to. F3 isn't TRYING anything. He's fielding a ball, and then veers away - and had he not veered away, he would have collided with the runner. You don't have to read anyone's mind here. You can SEE the runner in his path, and you can SEE him change directions because of that runner.

B) The standard for INT on this play and OBS on the other play is EXACTLY the same. The fielder has the right to field a batted ball - when runner got in his way, he was in jeopardy of an INT call --- and when fielder reacted to him, you have interference - exactly as you would have OBS if the roles were reversed.

Given that it seems you're an intelligent and competent umpire in most of these discussions - I'm beginning to wonder if you're merely sticking to your guns for the sake of winning an argument. It's completely OK to say, "Well, upon further review, I may have been mistaken earlier."

Gentlemen,

Below are three scenarios (same or similar to the original play) that illustrates how the rule(s) is applied at the NCAA and PRO levels:

Play #1: B1 hits a ground ball that is deflected by the pitcher and rebounds near the foul line by 1st base. F3 moves towards the ball and just as he's about to field it, the B/R makes contact with the fielder while legally running to 1st base. This is INTERFERENCE

Play #2: B1 hits a ground ball that is deflected by the pitcher and rebounds over near the foul line by 1st base. F3 moves towards the ball, and, while doing so contacts the B/R who is legally running to 1st base before he could attempt to field the ball. This is OBSTRUCTION

Play #3: B1 hits a ground ball that is deflected by the pitcher and rebounds over near the foul line by 1st base. F3 moves towards the ball but his momentum is slowed or stopped because of B/R who is legally running to 1st base. This is "THAT'S NOTHING" ... which what was correctly ruled in the original play - although I think U1 could have given a verbal "that's nothing" followed by a safe mechanic.

NOTE: Moving towards the ball is just PART of the attempt to make a play and the fielder is generally not protected (ie. the farther away he is from gloving the ball, the LESS protected he is). Now, when the fielder is in the actual act of fielding (gloving) the ball, he is protected (ie. the closer he is to gloving the ball, the MORE protected he becomes).

Let the debating continue ...

Not the OP but, with a fair bunted ball about halfway down the 1B line, do you require the pitcher to get trucked or can he pull up because the runner is running straight at and over the ball.
The definition of Offensive Interference does not even have the word contact in it.

Contact is not required, HOWEVER, 99x out of 100, interference calls on batted balls occur when a runner makes CONTACT with a fielder who is in the immediate act of fielding the ball. I'm sure there's a play or two when interference can be called on batted balls WITHOUT contact (ie. like some are saying about the original play in question), but I can't really think of any.

For those asking for interference, do you call interference when F6 charges a ground ball for a couple steps, stops and put his glove down to field the ball one step behind R2's path? Do you try to make a determination if he stopped there so as not to get "run over" by R2?

You do see it a lot. Groundball to F6 or F4. Defenders could charge the ball and create contact and get the interference easily. Instead, they do yield to the runner and field the ball after they pass. You don't see interference called on these kind of plays...doing so would be OOO above kiddie ball level.

In this play, F3 couldn't get to the ball before BR passed. If he was a step or two closer he could have gotten to the ball in fair territory and had a play. I think F3 just gave up on it. One could possibly see interference, but I wouldn't bail out the defense out on that effort.

Amen! It goes back to what I posted earlier - don't take the sh!tty end of the stick...especially at the higher levels.

I would not have interference on this play. I think F3 gave way "too soon" -- that is he chose to go into foul, he wasn't forced to do so by the runner's actions.

Mike, believe me if I think I am wrong I will be the first to admit. I can't officiate based upon what I think may have happened but my ruling has to be on what actually happened. Probably the one interp in Fed ball that asks us to do differently is a bad throw to first on RLI. OBR and NCAA says the quality of the throw counts. Fed asks us to assume that the fielder could have made a good throw but, didn't because the BR was there. Not crazy about it but that is how they want it called.

Again, interference does not have to be intentional but it does have to be interference. In this I don't believe it was. If you feel differently then that's ok, we can agree to disagree and move on.

Enjoy the weekend.

Yes, that's my position.

If you don't try to field the ball, I'm not going to say you were impeded in trying to field the ball. When you have the right to your position and you cede it unnecessarily, I'm not going to bail you out.