Unusual interference play

[John Robertson]

This play happened in a game I umpired several years ago. I've never seen a comparable play since then. Let me know if you agree with the ruling we made.

Runner at third base. Nobody out. Batter hits an infield pop-up. The ball is over foul territory between the third base coach's box and the runner standing on third base. The shortstop says, "I've got it," and moves over to make the catch. However, the shortstop, while looking at the ball, runs into the baserunner still standing on third base. Both the shortstop and the runner tumble to the ground. The ball lands in foul territory.

Here's what we ruled: The runner on third base was out for intereference for not getting out of the shortstop's way. Since the ball landed foul, the batter has a strike on him. (Had it been a fair ball, we would have awarded the batter first base.)

Your opinions, please.

[Edited by John Robertson on Jul 21st, 2005 at 01:44 PM]

[Bluefoot]

Unless the runner on 3B intentionally interferes with the F5, then how can he be ruled out for interference? He is entitled to remain on 3B. (as long as he does not interfere with F5).

Do you think that R1 should have vacated 3B so F5 could catch the pop up, and by doing so put himself in jeapordy of being doubled up for the second out on the play?

What I further do not understand is how can you rule R1 out for interference, and not call B2 out on the play? If the attempt to catch the ball is declared interference, then doesn't the "interfered-with out" have to be recorded as well?

When a spectator interferes with a fielder making a catch and spectator interference is called, you don't see the spectator being called out, and a foul ball is called on the batter, do you? No you don't - the batter is called out.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Bluefoot
Unless the runner on 3B intentionally interferes with the F5, then how can he be ruled out for interference? He is entitled to remain on 3B. (as long as he does not interfere with F5).

Do you think that R1 should have vacated 3B so F5 could catch the pop up, and by doing so put himself in jeapordy of being doubled up for the second out on the play?

What I further do not understand is how can you rule R1 out for interference, and not call B2 out on the play? If the attempt to catch the ball is declared interference, then doesn't the "interfered-with out" have to be recorded as well?

When a spectator interferes with a fielder making a catch and spectator interference is called, you don't see the spectator being called out, and a foul ball is called on the batter, do you? No you don't - the batter is called out.

Bluefoot:
Read ASA 8.7.J.2 and POE #33-A.1.c and -A.1.d.

Sounds like they got the call right based on their judgement at the time.

[Edited by SRW on Jul 21st, 2005 at 04:06 PM]

[AtlUmpSteve]

I can partially agree with Sean. Interference while in contact with the base would have to be intentional in your judgement. That is an ASA casebook play (although on 1B) 8.9-7; ruling is foul ball, no interference, per 8.8-M, and POE#33 1.A(c), if runner is in contact with a legally held base, unless hindrance was intentional.

But, if interference is called (runner was off the base, or act was intentional), you always rule the player who interfered out; if this stopped catching a routine fair or fly with normal ease, both are out (ASA 8.7-L exception).

If you ruled interference, ball wasn't caught, but it wasn't routine (would have required a good play, although makeable), then runner is out, batter charged a foul strike per POE#33 1.A(d).