Over on eteamz Mike said "There are no train wrecks on a batted ball, the fielder has the right-of-way."

That got me thinking about when a RH batter bunts and starts towards 1B in fair territory, and the catcher is going for the ball - and they collide. No intent, neither one committed any overt act to impede the other; they just ran into each other.

I thought, from previous discussions here, that both had equal rights to that space and the call was accident - play on. Is it only on a thrown ball that an accident can occur?


Change the subject a bit. All books seem to say that Intent is not required for most charges of interference, and that contact is not necessary. The ASA POE uses the words visual distraction, or any type of distraction that would hinder a fielder in the execution of a play is grounds for interference.

The most blatent example of visual distraction occurs when a runner passes between the ball and the fielder, causing the fielder to momentarily lose sight of the ball. Yet if the fielder fails to make a play most of you say that the runner has the right to run to the base, and it is the responsibility of the fielder to maintain concentration and field the ball.

So what does it take to call interference if there is no contact? If a runner and fielder are on a collision course and at the last moment the runner spins away behind the fielder, but the fielder flinches (to protect herself) and misses the ball, is that interference? Or are we going to say that fielders need nerves of steel and are required to stay focused on their target and not be bothered by the runners action.

If a runner is pasing in front of a charging fielder, and the fielder hesitates to let the runner clear and the ball takes a bad hop off the fielders shoulder are we going to call interference because in one more step the fielder chould have short-hopped the ball and taken the bad hop out of play?

Can you give me examples of what you would call interference if there was no contact?

WMB

<b>Can you give me examples of what you would call interference if there was no contact?</b>

WMB,

One quick one, I am tried, did a triple header today.

Runner running in front of a fielder waving her arms and
shouting. "DDB - Interference".

You are no help, Glen! :p But it was funny.

Intent not required. Let's deal with non-contact interference that is not intentional.

WMB

You are correct that you could have contact on a batted ball without ruling interference, but this isn't what I refer to as a "train wreck", but incidental contact. My idea of a train wreck is all three elements arriving at a single place at one time.

Semantics aside, the bunt in front of the plate could result in runner-fielder contact without INT.

Quote:

Change the subject a bit. All books seem to say that Intent is not required for most charges of interference, and that contact is not necessary. The ASA POE uses the words visual distraction, or any type of distraction that would hinder a fielder in the execution of a play is grounds for interference. The most blatent example of visual distraction occurs when a runner passes between the ball and the fielder, causing the fielder to momentarily lose sight of the ball. Yet if the fielder fails to make a play most of you say that the runner has the right to run to the base, and it is the responsibility of the fielder to maintain concentration and field the ball. So what does it take to call interference if there is no contact? If a runner and fielder are on a collision course and at the last moment the runner spins away behind the fielder, but the fielder flinches (to protect herself) and misses the ball, is that interference? Or are we going to say that fielders need nerves of steel and are required to stay focused on their target and not be bothered by the runners action. If a runner is pasing in front of a charging fielder, and the fielder hesitates to let the runner clear and the ball takes a bad hop off the fielders shoulder are we going to call interference because in one more step the fielder chould have short-hopped the ball and taken the bad hop out of play? Can you give me examples of what you would call interference if there was no contact? WMB

The fielder definitely owns the field at this point. Simply running in front of a fielder is not interference as long as the runner remains in full stride. The runner who hesitates to time their passing with the ball can be interference as their intent has clearly become to distract the fielder, not advance to the next base.

If a runner's presence causes a fielder to check-up, you are now getting into the mind of the player and it truly becomes totally umpire's judgment. One defensive strategy is to beat the runner to the spot on the field and force them to move around the fielder. Other than that, it is more prudent for the fielder to place themselves where they can field the ball cleanly. Not that they should have to do this, but assuming they will automatically get an INT call could cost them the opportunity to make an out.

BTW, what does a "bad hop" have to do with a passing runner? A bad hop is a bad hop and probably would have been trouble for the fielder regardless of any runner. If not, it obviously wasn't a "bad hop".





[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Mar 24th, 2004 at 06:16 AM]

Per our earlier chats, on the bunted ball situation...When the pitcher and/or the 3rd or first basemen had a play on the bunted ball...then we did not feel the contact between the BR & the catcher constituted interference. Actually we might have obstruction. Judgement as to who had gotten "out of the gate first" came into play.

”Simply running in front of a fielder is not interference as long as the runner remains in full stride. The runner who hesitates to time their passing with the ball can be interference, as their intent has clearly become to distract the fielder, not advance to the next base.”

Again, you are bringing in “intent.” Are you saying that the runner is protected as long as they do nothing deliberate, or there is no contact? If so, then why do we have rules that non-contact distraction can be called interference?

” BTW, what does a "bad hop" have to do with a passing runner?”

Well, we are dealing with words, not video here so I am trying to describe a situation than anyone reading this could visualize. The ball is hit, you have the big hop; any decent fielder knows the second hop is not true. So they want to get it in the air, or short-hop it before it skids. But the runner is passing in front of them so they hesitate. That lost step allows the ball to land and skewer away and they were not able to make the play.

If I am reading you right, the defender must execute her playing regardless of any fear of getting hit. Get to the spot and field the ball! If she flinches or pulls up to avoid getting hit, that’s too bad. As long as the runner did nothing intentional, she is protected from interference.

Are there degrees of “hesitation?” What if the fielder totally stops? Say R1 at 3B, pop fly near coaches box. R1 is heading back to 3B, F5 is heading towards foul territory. They are heading at each other, face to face, F5 stops and ball drops to ground. If this is not interference, then are we saying that the fielder needs to initiate contact in order to get a call from the Blue?

WMB

I raised intent only as a matter to gauge one's judgment, not a condition of the call. And please tell me where I mentioned the runner being protected? There is not even an inference to that matter.

You seem to be trying to make an argument out of a routine practice and a no-brainer of a call or no-call.

Quote:

” BTW, what does a "bad hop" have to do with a passing runner?” Well, we are dealing with words, not video here so I am trying to describe a situation than anyone reading this could visualize. The ball is hit, you have the big hop; any decent fielder knows the second hop is not true. So they want to get it in the air, or short-hop it before it skids. But the runner is passing in front of them so they hesitate. That lost step allows the ball to land and skewer away and they were not able to make the play.

Like I stated before, there is no rule forbidding a runner to pass between the ball and the fielder. If the umpire judges the runner's presence detered the fielder from catching the ball, it is obviously interference. That's why we get the big bucks, to make that determination.

Quote:

If I am reading you right, the defender must execute her playing regardless of any fear of getting hit. Get to the spot and field the ball! If she flinches or pulls up to avoid getting hit, that’s too bad. As long as the runner did nothing intentional, she is protected from interference.

Never made any such statement. I wish you would tell me where you are reading this stuff, 'cause I certainly ain't typing it.

Quote:

Are there degrees of “hesitation?” What if the fielder totally stops? Say R1 at 3B, pop fly near coaches box. R1 is heading back to 3B, F5 is heading towards foul territory. They are heading at each other, face to face, F5 stops and ball drops to ground. If this is not interference, then are we saying that the fielder needs to initiate contact in order to get a call from the Blue? WMB

Once again, no such statement or inference.