Another Interference Question
 

R1 on 2B. B2 hits a slow roller straight to F6. F6 backs in to R1's path resulting in "slight"/incidental contact. R1 crosses plate (apparently scoring), B2 is safe at first. Defense then appeals the contact and is granted an out on interference on the contact.

In a subsequent game. R1 on 1B. F4 charges ball (from behind baseline to in front of baseline) and fields it. Observer tells me that F4 should have stopped in the baseline to draw interference. I relate situation from previous game and he says players are coached to do this.

Is this the way you think interference is to be treated?

Situation 1: If the ball, defense, and runner all get there at the same time, no interference. If interference, run counts unless the interference happens before run scores and 2 outs. Timing play.

Situation 2: if F4 is in a position to field ball in the base line, then runner has an obligation to alter path to avoid collision or hitting the ball about to be fielded. If a runner hits a player who has a play at the ball, runner is out. So the fielder stopping in the base line is perfectly legal, and if the runner hits the fielder, the runner is out. If the umpire thought, she'd have a double play, the umpire can call runner and BR out. May not seem fair, but that's the way I understand the rule.

Maybe I have my filter on - but it's the appeal that's getting me here more than anything. I don't know there's an appeal here - it's a judgement call. If I see interference, I have a dead ball and a runner jogging back to the dugout. If I don't - there's nothing to appeal.

1) INT is INT. If the runner interfered with the fielder, immediate dead ball, runner is out and can not score. BR is awarded 1st. Not appealable, umps should call when seen. Not sure what F6 was doing while R1 went all the way home.

2) No call if fielder get the ball as described. If the fielder stops in the basepath to draw INT, is that fielder still "fielding a batted ball"? If coached to do that, it's DMC because the dead ball prevents a second out.

F6 was throwing to first, late, probably because she didn't charge the ball instead of trying to slow down the runner. I think the reason R1 reached home "safely" was because, IIRC, the throw to first went wide.

I guess what I was asking was this: Would you always call interference on the runner if they contact the fielder attempting to field the ball, even if the fielder appears to be attempting to impede the runner? What if the fielder backs into the runner?

i do not think this case warrants an interference call on the runner. F6 BACKS into a runner on a slowly hit ball?

Remember the runner has the ultimate responsibility to avoid contact with a fielder who is making a play; however, if in your judgement the fielder was not making a play on the ball, but was in fact trying to get in the way of the runner you would then have obstruction on the fielder. Either way the call can not be appealed..... just questioned :D

Why not?.........................

Poe #14e
 

because..........

POE #14E "If the ball, runner, and the defensive player all arrive at the same time and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the collision rule (interference) or obstruction. This is merely incidental contact."

That's listed as POE 14 F in my book, and it's referring to INT vs. OBS vs. Crashing into a Fielder with the ball - i.e. most commonly at a base, i.e. a fielder receiving a thrown ball.

8.7.J.1 "The runner is out when the runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or a foul fly ball,..." - there is no exception that states anything to the effect of the interference being determinant upon when the ball arrives at the fielder or vice versa.

By what you've just said, a runner advancing between bases who knocks over a fielder who has just touched a batted ground ball with his/her glove is not guilty of runner INT.

I think that POE is about a play on a runner, not a batted ball attempt.

As above, "If the fielder stops in the basepath to draw INT, is that fielder still "fielding a batted ball"?" Includes intentionally backing up into the runner's path.

I think Hawkeye's right. Rereading, POE 14 is regarding a play on a runner and not a batted ball. Thanks Hawk!

It's important to read the POE's. It's 10 times as important to apply them to the cases they are meant to apply to... read the REST of this POE. This POE is clearly about a fielder receiving a thrown ball.

The runners have responsibility to avoid any fielder trying to field a ball. Failure to do so is interference - dead ball - and an out. However, a fielder who stops trying to field a ball in order to disrupt a runner is no longer fielding a ball - and is now guilty of obstruction instead, with all the penalties that entails.

Also note - you say that if the umpire DID call this interference, you'd still score the runner. How are you going to justify scoring this runner, who was out between 2nd and 3rd?

OK. I was wrong there too. Actually, I misread the thread. I thought that there was a runner on 3B who scored before an interference call.