Interference?
 

A while back I was watching an 11/U game. Time had run out and the home team was to get their last at bat. They were down by a run but had managed to tie the game and had a chance to win it with girls on 1st and 2nd with two outs. The batter hits a low flying pop-up a little more than half-way to 1st base that was about 2 feet on the fair side of the line. The fielder charges in and gets her glove on the ball but the ball pops out and rolled just a couple of feet in front of the batter runner charging up the line. The fielder reached into the base path of the runner to try to get the ball but the ball ended up being kicked into the dugout by the batter runner. What is the correct call? Is this interference? Is this a two base award? It ended up with a heated argument by the DC when the PU said game over. What would you guys rule here? ..Al

2 bases TOP, game over.

I think it might depend on the rule set. With FED step and reach "clause" I could see this being interference if it was within that step and reach zone since she was fielding a batted ball....Or I could see the call mcrowder made.

Thanks,

The DC kept arguing his player was trying to get the ball but the runner interfered with her. The PU said "No Interference, the game is over." The coach finally cooled down and lined his players up.

ISF
The fielder is allowed another go , so if one ,step interference on the batter runner .
How close was the fielder

The fielder was close enough to reach out and attempt to pick up the ball after it popped out of her glove; and while it was still slowly rolling into the basepath of the runner. The batter runners foot hit the ball a split second before the fielder could get to it... sending it into the dug-out. It was hot and maybe the PU didn't want to go into extra innings. :) I'm umpiring two baseball games in a little while so I better start getting ready. ...Al

Dave - I see your point if BR had interfered with the FIELDER... but OP has the BR contacting the ball. Regardless of the ruleset, if the deflected ball is contacted by the BR (obviously assuming no intent), then it doesn't matter if it's within a step and a reach - it's not interference.

Debeau - see my post to Dave. The fielder is still afforded some protection, but surely the BR cannot be expected to avoid a ball deflected off a fielder - especially one that's still that close to the fielder it deflected off of. Running into the ball itself is governed by a completely different set of rules from running into fielders.

What about this one: (ASA of course)

R1@1B - sharp one hopper knocked down by F4 - F4 reaching her glove for the ball (glove on it), has play at 2B if she gets it, R1 runs through reaching arm of F4, safe at 2B - no play able to be made. Runner crashed through arm and the ball was kicked/knocked (nothing intentional) into CF.

This happened this w/e - I called DB INT R1 out.

We lost a coach for that call too.

After the game, PU said he supported me because we were partners but it was a blown call.

Call discussed in depth with several umps post game, not a single umpire agreed with rule application.. so my feeling was I got it wrong..

The feeling was no INT - fielder had her protection up to the point she didnt make the initial play.

A good while after the game two coaches on the losing end of the call asked me what I thought about the call. I said I didn't see interference because the baserunner had no time to get away from the deflected ball. But I wish I had said what you have just said so clearly in you post.
I think if the PU had made that point to the head defensive coach he would have understood right away why there was no interference. I may get to explain it to them at another time, or perhaps to a coach in a game I am umpiring if a similar play happens. Thanks, ...Al

MCrowder
No ,step and reach scenario
Interference to be called .
This scenario was a question for whiteboard description at a recent ISF seminar with Merle Butler .
Wadeintothem
I too have interference withyour scenario

Now, if F4 had possession of the ball, it wouldn't be INT, but just placing a glove over a ball is nothing, but a ball in the shade.

Ask your partner why he didn't call OBS? :D

Sounds like INT to me. I am not aware of any "initial play" caveat in ASA's rules.

Wow...

Thanks a lot mike.

I think the only way people would know that is by reading the forums. NO ONE was buying my INT call... even when i'd read it straight out of the book to them.

Nothing on the call or OBS (at worst) was their feeling on the play.

I dont think this partner would call OBS on my call.. not in a million years, great guy I've worked with many times before.

No. "Step and a reach" is a term used to describe a FIELDER'S protection being extended when they bobble a play on a ball - that FIELDER is still protected, cannot be called for OBS, and will result in INT if a runner contacts that fielder.

"Step and a reach" has NOTHING to do with a deflected ball coming into contact with a runner. In fact, on a deflected ball, the runner has MORE protection on a deflected (or missed) ball that is still close to the fielder. You are taking an integral part of ONE part of the interference rule and applying it where it does not belong in ANOTHER part of the interference rule.

Unless there's a missing piece here that I'm missing, this sounds like INT to me.