Interference?
 

This is one I had never seen before.
We had a play with a runner on first where the batter-runner laid down a bunt. As the ball rolled down the first base line in fair ground the first baseman stood in foul ground waiting to pick it up. Before she could pick it up to make a play at first she was run down by the batter-runner. I called the batter-runner out for interference and put the runner at first back on first. Is this correct call?

speaking ISF/ESF...
 

Yep correct!
Unless there was obviously OBS to prevent to make an double. Then the runner clossed at home (in this case the runer on 1st) has ALSO to be called out...

I've also never seen this play before. Must be an mad-house on the field. People screaming, coaches who know nothing but complaining anyway, etc, etc. And in the end you're the bad guy! In my book you've done it right.

INT, not OBS, Dutch.

You are correct it was a mad house. My partner on the plate thought it was obstruction so no call was made there. The girl picked up the ball throwing wildly to first and over throwing. A throw was made back to home to throw out the runner from first. They then throw back to second to try to get the batter-runner on second. I don't make a call because I've been trying to stop play. Because of all the screaming and action no one notices one umpire with his hands up trying to stop the play. Once play stopped I explained the correct ruling. I had the offensive coach come unglued because how can it be interference hitting a player in foul ground. I explained she has the right to make to make a play no matter where she stands. He never did get that. My partner thought it was obstruction, but once I explained that even though she didn't have the ball it was right at her feet as she waited to see if it was fair or foul so she is making a play on the ball. I hope I never see this again. Thanks for the help!

I had a very similar play last summer. This is when it pays to be a tall guy with a big voice. (My Dead Ball! call has been known to stop play on adjacent fields. :rolleyes: ) So when I killed it, play stopped. It still took a minute to get the Offensive coach to understand, but at least he didn't have runners all over the base paths. If you don't have a big voice, make your signals "big and exaggerated."

If the BR had changed her path to veer around F3 would that have been OBS?

Not if the fielder was playing a batted ball and was, in the umpire's judgment, the defender most likely to field the ball.

Was F3 left handed?

Thank you, Mike. Is "[standing] in foul ground waiting to pick it up" considered "in the act of fielding a batted ball?" IOW, it does not matter if she is "actively" fielding or just standing there waiting to see whether it rolls foul, it is definitionally "in the act of fielding a batted ball" and therefore affords her the protection of the exception to the OBS definition?

In the OP it sounds as if the BR could have avoided contact easily since F3 was in foul territory; would the ruling be the same if the F3 were standing across most or all of the running lane (and just looking at the ball to see whether it was going to roll foul or not)? I am guessing if the answer to my question above is yes, then it would not matter where the defender is standing, she is still protected/exempted from committing OBS by definition? And in this case, the BR would be able to run more than 3' from the base path to avoid contact with F3 because it would not be done to avoid a tag?

If I am lucky, I will just begin to master all the rules by the time my DD stops playing, but I appreciate all the knowledge I get here.

Yes. Yes. Not by definition, but by being in the act of fielding the batted ball and being judged by the umpire to be the fielder most likely to make the play on the batted ball. That is correct. She is also allowed to run outside the running lane to avoid a fielder fielding a batted ball.

It is normal fielding for the fielder to wait on a slow roller near the foul line to see if it will go foul.

oooooooeps
 

The Queens English is still difficult to read and write. You're absolutely right, thanks for correcting me.
b.t.w. can't we write all in dutch, makes my job a lot easier:)

The who's what??? Over here we speak American English, and trust me, it is a far cry from the Queen's version. :D

You have time to teach it to all of us???? :confused:

Of zou ik, u heb tijd om het aan wij allemaal te onderwijzen moeten zeggen?

I know it's only in basic the same. However in Europe people are talking about the Queens English. Not that they will or can talk like the old lady...;)

The propper way to translate would be:
"Of zou ik moeten zeggen: Heeft u de tijd om het ons allemaal te onderwijzen"
But I take my cap off for you, such a quick reply AND in dutch!

neonsdf:

Could you give more information as to where F1 was in relation to the ball (How far away from the ball was F1?) and was F1 making attempt to pick up the ball?

I have a gut feeling that this is a play where one had to see it to call it.

I can see this as interference by the B/R if the ball was in the immediate vicinity of F1 but if F1 was standing a distance from the ball and was waiting to see if the ball was going to roll foul, then I can see this as obstruction by F1.

MTD, Sr.

Dank u. :)

Men hvorfor snakket du ikke norsk?

¿Y por qué no hablaste en español?

E per che non parli italiano?

Okay, I'm done. ;)

Porque hablábamos holandés.

I had an old boss who would say, "d@mn it, we're in America! Speak Spanish!"

But please, let's not get into an immigration debate now.

It's only normal in certain situations--such as when you don't have a play. But in the OP, I'd be picking up that ball ASAP for the easy tag on BR. Assuming that there was only the one runner as mentioned, I'd happily give up 2B for a sure out.

I didn't mean to imply it was good play or good coaching, only that it is "normal" as in "frequently seen". If the defense is waiting to allow the ball to roll foul, I consider that making a play on the batted ball. Running them over is interference.

Slightly different sitution but related question:

Do I understand correctly (from page 1) that the fielder most likely to make the play (and ONLY that fielder) is not interfering if she impedes the progress of the BR but other fielders also fielding the ball would be interfering? So if a batter pops one up to the right side that, left alone, would fall just foul of the base line about halfway to 1B, and F1, F2, and F3 all go for it and are therefore creating a big cluster (yes, there is another word I could add) along the base line (impeding the BR) while wating for the ball to fall, the ump would need to determine which ONE fielder was most likely to make the play and allow her to impede the BR's progress without any call, but if one (or both) of the other fielders impeded the progress of the BR, there would be an INT call?

Technically, Matt, you're talking about Obstruction, but otherwise, I think you've got it.

I was first base coach last night and watched the pitcher and second baseman converge on 1st when a ball was hit about half way up the 1B line. The pitcher crossed the line and got out of the way (though I don't think it was on purpose) and the 2B stretched inside the line. The batter was retired a step or two from the bag and I never felt she slowed down because of the crowd.

I really was hoping none of those girls were going to warrant an obstruction call, because I didn't really feel like explaining the the blue shirt behind me what I expected him to call.

AAAAAARRRRRGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

I know that I know that I know that!!! Offense=INT, Defense=OBS! I HATE it when I make that mistake!!!!

The sitch I described happened yesterday at my DD's school game.

Yeah, we do to! :D

I don't like to look EVEN DUMBER than I actually am!

Please reread my first post and the direct comment on it...
I made the mistake also! I can only say that it's due to my poor english (it's my 3th langue), what's your excuse?;)

Houten-schoen-in-mond ziekte!