Visual Interference on Base Runner

[whiskers_ump]

Was told tonight that I could not possibly believe that I could make this call:

R1 on 1B, batter hits ground ball to SS, who gets the ball and relays it to F4. F4
catches the ball, takes a step towards righfield to try and complete the DP. R1
comes in straight up and goes towards F4, who is to timid to relay the ball on to
F3. I call interference immediately and rule the BR out also. Coach wanted to
protest (misinterp of rule), but tournament sheet to all coaches told them all
calls on the field were final. Coach said there was no way intent was present
on the play. I asked why the runner went towards right field instead of the
direct path open to her....I saw intend and called it.

I know it is probably a HTBT play, but what say youse all.

(edited to correct some spelling)(did not say I caught it all)

[debeau]

Impedes confuses or hinders are the verbs we are looking for and I do believe you have at least one of those .
I too have called interference on a batter-runner running directly towards 1st baseman then veering away at the last step .
No intent is also irrelevant .
You got it right this was intimidation .

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
Was told tonight that I could not possibly believe that I could make this call:

R1 on 1B, batter hits ground ball to SS, who gets the ball and relays it to F4. F4
catches the ball, takes a step towards righfield to try and complete the DP. R1
comes in straight up and goes towards F4, who is to timid to relay the ball on to
F3.

Just a little clarification. F4 moved to the outside of the baseline after tagging 2B and the runner turned right toward F4. Is that correct?

[Steve M]

I've made similar calls, Glen. This may be an area where Fed & Legion baseball have a better approach - with their force-play slide rule.

Had a D1 game this year where the retired runner went straight to the bag & F6 waving her arms toward the face of F6. I made the interference call. Blew my mind that a D1 player would try something like that.

And, if we don't make that call, the next batter is likely to see nothing but high, hard, & inside stuff.

[mdntranger]

Sounds to me like you made the correct call. Without being there, my question would be did the runner alter their path in an attempt to get out of the way of the play not realizing that they were only moving into the play? I'm sure we've all seen the various cases and actions that separate the obvious double play breakups vs. normal play action.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Just a little clarification. F4 moved to the outside of the baseline after tagging 2B and the runner turned right toward F4. Is that correct?

F4 caught the ball, stepped back to throw to 1B, runner instead of continuing
straight to base, stepped out towards 2B'person. She (ruinner0 was in direct
line to continue to 2B, but swayed out in front of F4, who could not see 1B, so held
the ball. I ruled intent.

[Robmoz]

of course this is a HTBT but....... it sounds like nothing to me.

I figure nearly 100% of the time when a player running to 2B is NOT intending to interfere and is genuinely trying to avoid they will curl or duck out towards right field away from the diamond.

It sounds like this may have been coincidental action. I try hard to make sure that I get INT/OBS when it occurs but not all INT/OBS is intentional so a keen eye is needed.

Call em like you see em

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Robmoz
of course this is a HTBT but....... it sounds like nothing to me.

I figure nearly 100% of the time when a player running to 2B is NOT intending to interfere and is genuinely trying to avoid they will curl or duck out towards right field away from the diamond.

Or into the diamond.

It sounds like this may have been coincidental action. I try hard to make sure that I get INT/OBS when it occurs but not all INT/OBS is intentional so a keen eye is needed.

Speaking ASA

This play is why you do NOT require the runner to abandon their path toward the bag. That runner has every right to proceed to 2B and cannot just go "POOF" the moment s/he is retired.

Unless the runner is a mind-reader, s/he really doesn't know which way the fielder is going to come off the bag on a relay.

BTW, intent is not needed if INT is with the fielder attempting to throw the ball.

[DaveASA/FED]

Mike,
I agree with you for an active runner but if I read the rule right there must be intent with a retired runner.

Rule 8 sect7 P paraphrased a runner that has been declared out intentionally interferes with a defensive players opportunity to make a play on another runner.

It is the runner closest to home that is ruled out in this situation but this rule would be in effect if in you judgement the runners actions were intentional. So if I read it right intent is required for a retired runner to get INT call. Exactly to your point of they can't go "poof" once they are out, they have to mean to interfere to get called.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by DaveASA/FED
Mike,
I agree with you for an active runner but if I read the rule right there must be intent with a retired runner.

Rule 8 sect7 P paraphrased a runner that has been declared out intentionally interferes with a defensive players opportunity to make a play on another runner.

I do not disagree with you. However, look at POE 33 A.1 & A.1.a. This makes it seem as if it doesn't matter until after the interference.

Any call like this is going to have to be something the umpire must witness and immediately judge.

Mike