I had a game on Saturday where there was a girl on second. I was BU. Ball hit to the SS, runner on second going to third, and stopped just before the SS as she fielded the ball. SS bobbled the ball, and pushed it towards the runner. Runner made kind of a circle back to second and around the SS to avoid her and head to third. I saw no contact with the fielder or runner.In my judgment, the runner did everything she could to avoid the fielder, as the fielder bobbled the ball into the runner. Coach wanted interference. I made no call. Anyone out there whould have called that interference and why???

By the way, this was a NCAA game

[Edited by Del-Blue on Apr 12th, 2004 at 02:18 PM]

The way you described it, I would not have called interference.

However, I've seen umps (not at NCAA level) call interference if the fielder was at all disturbed by the runner's presence. Of course, I've seen practically everything called at one time or another!

Sounds like a good non-call. Unless the SS bobbled the ball because of the closeness of the runner? If it was just a fielding bobble, good decision.

I'm also a no call. Sounds like SS may have taken her eyes off the ball for a second, or lost concentration. Loss of concentration does not equal interference in my opinion.

Del-Blue,
After the fielder initially touched the ball, the ball is merely loose. The circling by the baserunner was not required.
If the base runner does nothing intentionally to interfere with the fielder, or the ball, then there is no penalty for that runner on that fielder.

<I>Note to 12-7-g : 1.) If a ball richochets off one defensive player and another player has the opportunity to make a play, the runner will be ruled out if she interferes with the second fielder.</I>

mick

No interference, not in college ball - maybe in some younger levels, but definitely not in college ball.

No interference, not in college ball - maybe in some younger levels, but definitely not in college ball.

I wouldnt have called it as described at the younger levels as described.. in fact I think less so.. the lower you go.. the less you might suspect intentional interference.... at the higher levels you are safer to assume Intent, as they are expected to know.

As we are not mind readers.. we must base intent on what we see and the skill level of the players involved.. the lower you go, the harder it is to know if it was intentional... whereas at the top levels... you can just assume whatever they do is by intent... they've been playing for some time and know the rules.

Agree or disagree?

wadeintothem,
I'm not gonna <U>disagree</U>.
But, I am not going to think about it.
I think I'll just judge the moment, the play at hand.
When I think to much, my hat falls off. ;)
mick

Good Call.

Thanks Guys,

Pretty much the same thinking as everyone mentioned, just looking for a little confirmation. Always nice to have agreement with everyone.