Interference with R2 and F6
 

What criteria do you guys use for ruling interference when a runner from second runs in front of the shortstop as a ground ball is approaching F6, assuming that there is no contact?

I have had plays where R2 was so close to F6 that F6 couldnt optimally position herself to field the ball, e.g. couldn't extend her arms or take an extra step in.

I've had plays where F6 can get into fielding position, but is visually screened by R2 for a split second as R2 passes by. Sometimes F6 cleanly fields the ball to boot.

Are these types of plays interference? Do you ever call interference if the ball is cleanly fielded even though the runner was right in front of F6 as the ball approached?

Do coaches tell their girls to run behing the shortstop in such situations.

Interference is the act of an offensive team member that hinders the defensive player's ability to make a play on a runner. The key word for me is "hinders." Did the runner's actions or position force the defensive player to adjust their throw? Did the runner's actions or position force the defensive player to stop prematurely? Did the runner's actions or position force the defensive player to hesitate?

If I'm going to call a runner out for interference, I'd better be absolutely positive that it was, indeed, interference. ASA took out the references to "intent" this year, and that has made the mind-reading game virtually non-existant. However, I will admit that the benefit of the doubt, for me, leans a little more towards the runner.

The rule is clearly defined, but whether or not it was interference is still a judgment call. My judgment is that if I don't see a clear deviation by the defensive player because of a hindering action by an offensive player, I don't have interference.

Coaches teach their players to play dirty? That's unheard of! :eek:

DTQ,
A lot of the answer to your question depends on the age group & skill level of the particular game. I'd expect a high school or older aged player to make that play. So, unless the runner did something to actually interfere, there's nothing there. The defensive player getting intimidated into not making a play just because of the presence of an offensive player doing what the offensive player should be doing is not interference.

In your descriptions I have interference .
Interference is hinders confuses impedes a player making a play .
Both these meet this criteria .

I don't agree with "visually screened by R2 for a split second as R2 passes by" being interference unless the runner does something other than run straight to the next base at full speed.

That is the fielder's fault for not taking her position. If she just sits back and waits on the ball, shame on her. If the runner is doing what s/he is supposed to do, advancing to 3B, it is nothing. If the fielder stops, let's the ball pass and then continues, it is nothing. If the runner shows that there was more on her mind than advancing, you may have INT. If the runner hesitates and then moves in front of the fielder just as the ball arrives, that's INT. If the runner makes any motion not connected to her running style or screams as she passes, that is INT.

What it comes down to is that the runner's mere existence at the spot in time is not in itself interference.

AT the end of the day interference is JUDGEMENT .
What you describe and what actually happens in a split second often is slightly different but enough to be or not to be !
I would think though any umpire can explain their judgement decision to a coach .
A thought .
If you are unsure if it is or isnt interference it probably isnt .