Help with interference

[rwest]

I struggle with this call. As a matter of fact, I've never called interference and I think at times I should have. I seem to have a hard time wrapping my brain around this and need some help.

In most cases, interference on a thrown ball has to be intentional. One of the situations I have difficulty with is the attempted 4-6-3 double play. I've heard from players (I know, not the most objective source) that the runner from 1st has to slide or veer out of the way. If he continues running to second in an upright position the Batter-runner should be out (assuming the Batter-runner is closest to home at the time of the interference). So what do you call in this situation? What can the runner do and not be called for interference?

I had another situation I need help with.

Runners at 1st and 2nd. Batter hits a ground ball to F5 who steps on 3rd for the force out. The runner from second bumps into F5 while he is attempting to turn and throw to 1st. It was not intentional and I know interference with a fielder attempting to throw the ball does not have to be intentional. However, he never made the throw. He never even got the ball out of the glove. Does he have to throw the ball before you call interference? What if in your opinion he had no chance on getting the out at 1st? Do you still call interference? Or does he have to have a legitimate chance on getting the out?


One more thing. I'm assuming that we use the position of the ball relative to the hand to determine the difference between throwing and a thrown ball. If the ball has left the hand, its a thrown ball and interference in most cases at this point would have to be intentional. Is this a little too literal?

Thanks!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by rwest
I struggle with this call. As a matter of fact, I've never called interference and I think at times I should have. I seem to have a hard time wrapping my brain around this and need some help.

In most cases, interference on a thrown ball has to be intentional. One of the situations I have difficulty with is the attempted 4-6-3 double play. I've heard from players (I know, not the most objective source) that the runner from 1st has to slide or veer out of the way. If he continues running to second in an upright position the Batter-runner should be out (assuming the Batter-runner is closest to home at the time of the interference). So what do you call in this situation? What can the runner do and not be called for interference?

Here is a shocker, the players are wrong. The runner has every right to attempt to advance to the base and should not be expected to surrender simply because it appears they will be put out. That runner cannot just disappear into thin air and should stay on the same line as they were advancing.

This is actually beneficial to the fielder. They don't have a clue, but it is. If the runner does what the fielder suggests, he may "veer" in the same direction as the player relaying the throw. Then the fielder will ***** about that. If the runner stays the course, the fielder can predetermine where they need to throw the ball. Not much different than a catcher knowing that the batter must stay in the box, so s/he knows where and where not to throw the ball before the play even develops.

When I hear a fielder state that the next time, he'll just nail the runner between the eyes, I do not hesitate to tell him that if that scenario occurs, I will eject him, call 911 for the runner and then give him my card and volunteer as a witness in court. AND I MEAN IT!

Runners at 1st and 2nd. Batter hits a ground ball to F5 who steps on 3rd for the force out. The runner from second bumps into F5 while he is attempting to turn and throw to 1st. It was not intentional and I know interference with a fielder attempting to throw the ball does not have to be intentional. However, he never made the throw. He never even got the ball out of the glove. Does he have to throw the ball before you call interference? What if in your opinion he had no chance on getting the out at 1st? Do you still call interference? Or does he have to have a legitimate chance on getting the out?

That is either one fast runner or an extremely slow third baseman. If the ball isn't even out of the glove, it doesn't sound like you had much of a play developing. However, it is your judgment as to whether the defense's effort was impeded.

One more thing. I'm assuming that we use the position of the ball relative to the hand to determine the difference between throwing and a thrown ball. If the ball has left the hand, its a thrown ball and interference in most cases at this point would have to be intentional. Is this a little too literal?

If the ball hasn't left the hand, it hasn't been thrown.

[rwest]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Here is a shocker, the players are wrong. The runner has every right to attempt to advance to the base and should not be expected to surrender simply because it appears they will be put out. That runner cannot just disappear into thin air and should stay on the same line as they were advancing.

This is actually beneficial to the fielder. They don't have a clue, but it is. If the runner does what the fielder suggests, he may "veer" in the same direction as the player relaying the throw. Then the fielder will ***** about that. If the runner stays the course, the fielder can predetermine where they need to throw the ball. Not much different than a catcher knowing that the batter must stay in the box, so s/he knows where and where not to throw the ball before the play even develops.

Thanks Mike, that's helpful. I had never thought that staying the course actually helps the defense, but I see the logic.

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
That is either one fast runner or an extremely slow third baseman. If the ball isn't even out of the glove, it doesn't sound like you had much of a play developing. However, it is your judgment as to whether the defense's effort was impeded.

Actually I believe the 3rd baseman was playing back or he may have juggled the ball a bit before securing it. I can't remember exactly, but he got to the base a few steps before the runner and was turning to make his throw when she bumped into him.

Am I right in thinking that the fielder must have a legitimate chance to get the out before I call interference? The rule book doesn't say specifically. It uses language similar to "opportunity to make an out". One could argue that if there was no way the throw could have beat the runner there was no opportunity. Is that how I should look at it?

Thanks!
Randall

[debeau]

I agree with Irish the runner keeps on running .
Any interference has to be intentional on this play .
An arm has to go up maybe a scream or yell or some sort of action to confuse the fielder .
You are right as to the double play interference problem .
It is hard to and fielders will try to "milk" an interference .
In the second scenario the runner is already out
Once a player is out they do have to disappear .
The runner from 3rd has prevented the fielder making a play
on another runner ie throwing the ball .
We now have interference