who's responsibility is it?
 

Situation:

two outs, R1 on third, R2 on Second. B1 hits ball to shortstop. As line drive approaches SS she moves left to field ball but suddenly flinches because the runner (R2) is there. As plate umpire I call runner out because I feel SS could have easily fielded the ball. Base umpire is upset because she feels that is her call.
Any feedback?

Either umpire can call obstruction or interference, but in this situation maybe the base umpire felt you were calling in their area. Sometimes the umpire doesn't see these things and sometimes they have passed on them. It's a fine line between the two sometimes. Bottom line is get the call right, and put your pride on the shelf.

Guess I'd wonder what the level is. A high school varsity player had better be able to make the play. So, varsity or higher, I've probably got no call - based on what you described.

As to who's call that is - primary is BU. Call in your area, watch the other area(s). Give your partner the chance to make the call. If partner has a good look, I'm probably going to trust my partner's judgement. If partner does not have a good look, make the call.

Steve,

This was a Federation Varsity Game. Can you tell me where in the book or umpires manual where it says that an area of the field is a base umpires and where the areas of the field belong to the plate umpire?

As to who's call that is - primary is BU. Call in your area, watch the other area(s). Give your partner the chance to make the call. If partner has a good look, I'm probably going to trust my partner's judgement. If partner does not have a good look, make the call.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but I disagree with this. The resposibility for a line drive in the infield belongs to the PU. The BU, stationed in the C position is behind the SS and in no position to call catch/no catch on a line drive.

I do agree, however, that either umpire can make the interference call here.

So the runner is there. Where's the INT. What did the runner do to interfere?

That was my question
What did the runner do to inerfere?
I had a collision yesterday when R2 on 2B crashed into F6 fielding a ground ball. DB, Out
Coach: Blue, that runner has the same right to that spot on the field as the fielder

Is that another one of those "hands are a part of the bat" myths?

Irish,

In my opinion and from my angle I felt the runner did not make an adaquate attempt to avoid the fielder and entered the fielders area.

Read the words of this rule againm blu. No where is the adequacy of the runner's attempt to avoid mentioned.

Just because a fielder sees a runner out of the corner of their eye or runs by them is not interference. More lack of concentration on the fielder.

No Contact? No Verbal Distraction? Just being "in the area" and you call interference????

I'd be upset if I were your partner too! But not simply because you made my call! Maybe the fielder "flinched" because she got a chill, or a fly landed on her? Come ON! Let'm Play! The game is not about SEEING the umpire make calls!

The best called game is one that you are never noticed!

As with most interference scenarios, this is a HTBT to determine whether or not we have interference.

I read the original post as F6 moving to field the ball and flinching or stopping due to what she believes is an imminent collision with the runner! That's interference in my book. It is the runners responsibility to avoid the fielder. Yes, its a judgement call and none of us (except the OP) were there. We can only go off of the picture we form in our mind from the description provided.

As far as whose call it is - Steve M gave a good guideline.

No where in the rule book does it say contact or verbal distraction must happen to constitute interference. I percieved that the fielder thought a collision was going to take place based on the location of the runner.

If you're going to get ticky-tack on his words, what about yours. No where in the rulebook does it say that perception about what a fielder THOUGHT might happen constitutes interference. No where does it say that fear of a possible collision by a fielder constitutes interference. How about instead of wordsmithing, look at what the rule actually DOES say.

The runner was doing what the runner was supposed to do, and did not prevent a play. The fielder's reaction to what may or may not have happened is what prevented a play. I grant you that actual contact is not always required for an interference call. But I do think you are stretching the words of the rule WAY WAY WAY too far here.