Interference? Or, no call?
 

USSSA qualifier tournament, 16U Championship game . Visiting team is ahead by one or two runs, bottom of the 5th with bases loaded. I am in "C."

Hard shot to short, F6 comes in a step or two, is on or slightly in front of the baseline. Ball takes a nasty turn and skids 3' - 5' to the left of F6. R2 is only a step or so away, having put on the brakes to avoid F6; then goes behind F6 on to 3B. I have no call; D Coach wants interference; claiming F6 could not get to the ball because R2 was in her way.

Incredible as this may seem; the identical play occured three times in a row! (3 consecutive batters!) Each time I had no call; several runs scored and visitors have lost their lead and eventually lost the game. I suppose you know that I was not the most popular person around there the last couple innings.

OK - let's analyze this. Could F6 have gone to her left to field the ball? No, because R2 was immediately to her left. Did R2 impede F6? Maybe. Is that interference? You tell me.

My thought process was that I did not know IF F6 would go to her left. I didn't know if her brain said "stop, there is someone there." If she had at least taken a step and put R2 between her and the ball, I would have called interference. Obviously, if there had been any contact it would have been an almost automatic call. The most action I saw was that she turned left, but never took a step.

Did she not go left because of R2? Or did she not even have a chance at the ball, which skidded away from her like a rocket?


WMB

If, in your judgement, you felt that F6 had no play on the ball because of its erratic bounce, then you can't have interference. If you felt that she could have had a play on the ball had it not been for the runner, then you would. From reading your post, though, I think you felt that there was no play to be had, and in that case I would agree with your "no call."

I agree that it comes down to whether F6 had a chance. If a "hard shot" means that the ball was almost to F6 before deflecting, the 3' or 5' might be the difference between having a chance or not. So, either because of distance or timing of the deflection; F6 having a chance requires visualization of what would have happened w/o R2, that is, would F6 been able to reach the ball in time for a play if no runner was there.

Reading the OP, I could see an interference possibility, but only if really obvious that F6 had a play.

Did the runner impede, hinder, or confuse the fielder from making a play? Is contact necessary?

WMB said "My thought process was that I did not know IF F6 would go to her left. I didn't know if her brain said "stop, there is someone there." If she had at least taken a step and put R2 between her and the ball, I would have called interference. Obviously, if there had been any contact it would have been an almost automatic call. The most action I saw was that she turned left, but never took a step.

Did she not go left because of R2? Or did she not even have a chance at the ball, which skidded away from her like a rocket?"

My thought process is a bit different. I expect that fielder to make the play. If the fielder gets intimidated by a runner, that's a dumb move fielder. If the fielder did not go left, it is because the fielder felt she did not have a chance at the ball. 16&U, in a championship game should be a fairly well schooled and skilled player. I have no call on the play that was given. That runner did not actively interfere - the description sounds like she did exactly what a runner is supposed to do - that too sez no call.

Agreed. But I think that the ball was close enough to be considered playable, given the talent level on the field.

Had there not been a runner on, I don't question that F6 would have gone for the ball, maybe in 2 out of 3 caught it or at least knocked it down. Thus I think that she didn't go because of the presence of R2.

My problem is that she didn't even attempt to move towards the ball. Not even a baby step (though she did turn to her left). IF she had taken a step, and then stopped I would have called interference. But in lieu of any physical reaction, I feel that I am guessing that she stopped because of R2. Thus I would be guessing an out if I called interference.

I am not trying to justify my calls; I made them and will stick with it. But I am wondering how others feel. The basic question is, "If there is a runner between a fielder and the path of the ball, is that in itself itself justification for interference, even if the defender does not (physically) show you that she wanted to move towards the ball?

WMB

For me, I had better see *some* kind of attempt by the fielder to make a play other than simply "turning left." How did she react after she turned left? Did she take a surprised step back? Did she flinch and start to dodge? I'll admit I don't remember USSSA's wording for interference (it's been 12 years, and it's probably changed since then), but I doubt it's all that different from ASA.

If I'm going to call a runner out for INT, I had better be positive that it was INT. It doesn't sound like you were at that point with these calls, so I think you were right in not calling INT. Strange things do happen, man.