base runner interference??

[josephrt1]

My catcher's obstruction/batter interference post generated a lot of thought. Here's one from a couple years back that i never got a clear answer to.

I was base ump in 16U ASA tournament. When one of the teams got runners to 3rd, the coach would instruct them on their return to 3rd to keep going away from the line, in front of the 3rd baseman to block any attempt at a pick-off. This was not your standard "take your lead in foul territory, return inside the line" approach. I would keep hearing the coach say "More, More More" as the girls were returning to the base. He was getting them way off the line, maybe 3 feet, in an attempt to interfere with a pick-off. They weren't just returning to the base, they were intentionally blocking the 3rd baseman. Never seen any other team be so blatant.

I was waiting for a throw to 3rd so i could ring a runner up, but catcher never threw down.

Your thoughts? Would that have been a legit interference call?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

My catcher's obstruction/batter interference post generated a lot of thought. Here's one from a couple years back that i never got a clear answer to.

I was base ump in 16U ASA tournament. When one of the teams got runners to 3rd, the coach would instruct them on their return to 3rd to keep going away from the line, in front of the 3rd baseman to block any attempt at a pick-off. This was not your standard "take your lead in foul territory, return inside the line" approach. I would keep hearing the coach say "More, More More" as the girls were returning to the base. He was getting them way off the line, maybe 3 feet, in an attempt to interfere with a pick-off. They weren't just returning to the base, they were intentionally blocking the 3rd baseman. Never seen any other team be so blatant.

I was waiting for a throw to 3rd so i could ring a runner up, but catcher never threw down.

Your thoughts? Would that have been a legit interference call?

You would have to judge intentional on that particular occasion and actual hindrance with the throw.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

My catcher's obstruction/batter interference post generated a lot of thought. Here's one from a couple years back that i never got a clear answer to.

I was base ump in 16U ASA tournament. When one of the teams got runners to 3rd, the coach would instruct them on their return to 3rd to keep going away from the line, in front of the 3rd baseman to block any attempt at a pick-off. This was not your standard "take your lead in foul territory, return inside the line" approach. I would keep hearing the coach say "More, More More" as the girls were returning to the base. He was getting them way off the line, maybe 3 feet, in an attempt to interfere with a pick-off. They weren't just returning to the base, they were intentionally blocking the 3rd baseman. Never seen any other team be so blatant.

I was waiting for a throw to 3rd so i could ring a runner up, but catcher never threw down.

Your thoughts? Would that have been a legit interference call?

It is nothing. Pretty sure I would have stated that before. Just in case, let me say it again, it is nothing. Referring solely to the situation being offered, runners are allowed to elect their own path to a base. They are not bound by base lines, throwing lanes or anything else.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It is nothing. Pretty sure I would have stated that before. Just in case, let me say it again, it is nothing. Referring solely to the situation being offered, runners are allowed to elect their own path to a base. They are not bound by base lines, throwing lanes or anything else.

Even if their sole intent is to interfere with the play? it was easy to judge intent here because every time the coach was directing them to get further away from the line until he was sure they were blocking the 3rd baseman. I've never seen anything more intentional.

Just like in the example of batter interference given in another thread. Batter is entitled to the entire batter's box and to pull back on a bunt. But when it is done in a deliberate manner for the sole purpose of interfering with the catcher, we have interference. I kind of equate the 2. In my base runner example, she is entitled to her path but when the runner is deliberately trying to block out the fielder do we not have something? Hard to think this one through.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

Even if their sole intent is to interfere with the play? it was easy to judge intent here because every time the coach was directing them to get further away from the line until he was sure they were blocking the 3rd baseman. I've never seen anything more intentional.

Show me a rule which forbids the runner returning to 3rd cannot do so in fair territory, by any margin of distance?

IMO, it is not INT, it is a deterrent. The runner's action does not prevent the catcher from throwing to 3B.

Just like in the example of batter interference given in another thread. Batter is entitled to the entire batter's box and to pull back on a bunt. But when it is done in a deliberate manner for the sole purpose of interfering with the catcher, we have interference. I kind of equate the 2. In my base runner example, she is entitled to her path but when the runner is deliberately trying to block out the fielder do we not have something? Hard to think this one through.

Running is not INT. Waving the arms, jumping up in the air, doing anything that does not resemble moving toward a base, all could be INT, but not simply running in whatever path s/he may choose.

[josephrt1]

Thanks. I appreciate the review.