Do you agree with this non-call?

[WestMichBlue]

14U tournament, R1 on 2B, ball hit on ground towards F6. Happened twice in same game, to same F6. On one play the ball hit and skidded towards 2B; the other hit was well to the left of F6.

In one case she turned left and stopped; on the second she turned and took a small step and stopped. R1 ran behind F6 and scored.

Based on the relationship of F6, the ball path, and R1, one could assume that F6 stopped because R1 was coming right at her, taking away F6’s route to the ball. Later F6 told me that she could not get to the ball because R1 was in her way.

I made no call, and of course took a lot of flack from the D Coach who wanted interference.

My position was that I could not look into F6’s mind to determine why she chose not to move to field the ball. She may have felt she would collide with R1, or she may have felt she couldn’t get to the ball anyway, or she may have simply froze. I required that she at least make an attempt to go to the ball and pull off at the last second or maybe even have some contact.

In my mind, I felt – with 90% certainty – that F6 stopped because R1 was in her way. But, without overt action of her part, I would not give her the benefit of the 10% doubt.

Agree? Or would you have called interference?


WMB

[DaveASA/FED]

Well from what you describe I am saying you have a muffed ball where the F6 misplayed the ball and is now chasing it. Not sure what rule set but in FED you have that step and reach wording, so if it was more than a step and reach then the offensive player has to be aware of not having OBS on the runner. Now again I am assumming it was a muffed ball based on the wording of "ball hit and" so if not then we might have a different situation.

Bottom line it is judgement and that is not argueable. But you do bring up a good point, how sure do you have to be that there was INT or OBS? 100% 90% 51% what is the point where you convince yourself that yep, that is one to call?

[Andy]

I think I need more information to make a determination.

How close was R1 to F6 in either/both incidents? If a collision was imminent (judgement) and I thought that F6 could get to the ball, I would call interference. My definintion of imminent would be within a step or so. If there is more than that distance between the two when F6 pulled up, I would agree with a no-call.

As is the case with most interference scenarios, HTBT is applicable here as well.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Well from what you describe I am saying you have a muffed ball where the F6 misplayed the ball and is now chasing it.

No - the ball path was wide (10' to 15') left of F6. She need to take several steps towards 2B to get to the ball. Could she physically got there to field the ball? Maybe, maybe not. We will never know because she did not move there when she saw R1 between her and the point where she would have had to reach to field the ball.

WMB

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by Andy

I think I need more information to make a determination.

As is the case with most interference scenarios, HTBT is applicable here as well.

I don't think you have to be there, because I don't think it is a personal judgment about interference WRT proximity of players.

My question is: do I judge why F6 did not move to the ball, based on my opinion whether or not R1 was in the way?

Or do I require F6 to make an effort to play on the ball, and then pull up if R1 is in the way?

(Does she have to prove to me that she was interferred with? Or can I make that decision?)

WMB

[DaveASA/FED]

O well that is a different animal you got all kinds of things, was she thinking ss would field it, was she thinking she needed to get to 3rd for a possible play there.....all that is added into the thinking.....I would think you could sell this either way based on the events that happened in that couple of seconds. Either a-coach she didn't have a play on the ball, or it was too far away to protect her, and she never made an attempt at the ball or if you do call INT, there would be a IMJ she pulled up when she saw the runner....you could sell it either way, no doubt a HTBT kind of play

[pollywolly60]

I'm not the most experienced umpire on this board, but I'll give you my thoughts on your play, if for no other reason than to see what kind of feedback it gets.
From your description of the play, I also have a no call. Interference is a judgement call made by an umpire because the umpire judged the runner to have interfered with a fielder, not because the fielder judged that they couldn't get to the ball (because of the runner). When there is no contact between the two players, we have to look at other factors to determine interference. This may not be correct, but I think I would look at just how much effort the fielder was making to get to the ball.

[DaveASA/FED]

Well on your second question I would say yes

You could judge INT if you think she didn't attempt for the ball cause the runner was there. A more clear cut example (not that it would happen but it makes a good point) if F3 was in the base line with R1 on 1st and a line shot came right up 1st baseline and F3 turned her head and saw R1 standing directly between her and the ball and didn't move I could have INT again HTBT to judge if she really stopped cause of R1 or cause she thought she couldn't get the ball, or was just a lazy 1st baseperson

IMO for what that is worth, I think most cases I am going to have to see the fielder attempt for the ball and then pull up because of the runner. I see it as I think of OBS, the runner just being there is NOT int, they actually have to hinder the defense from making the play, and that is where the judgement comes in and where 3/4 of our game checks are earned.

Again I think either can be INT, but you HTBT to see what the hesitation is like, again you have to judge if F6 pulled up because of R1 (then it is INT) or did she think the ss was going to field it, and she needed to be at 3rd for a possible play? Or did she think about it and then realize she had no chance at the ball and making a play on the ball at its location. Again these are judgment calls based on seeing the play unfold. But to answer you original question I think you could have INT in both cases based on what you see in the actual play under consideration, or you could have a no call based on what you saw.

[Andy]

Your question from the OP was:

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Agree? Or would you have called interference?

My response was that I wanted more information than you shared to either agree or disagree. I expanded on that with the information that I thought was applicable.

Your next question was:

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

...do I judge why F6 did not move to the ball, based on my opinion whether or not R1 was in the way?

Or do I require F6 to make an effort to play on the ball, and then pull up if R1 is in the way?

You set your own standard here....personally, I need to see some effort by F6 to play the ball if a collision is not imminent.

It is my opinion that the proximity of the players in question is a significant factor in whether interference is called or not.

[3SPORT]

The fielder needs to play the ball and not the runner. If they freeze then they are playing the runner.

Play the ball! Contact might occur and if you pull up at the last second it is easier to judge intereference.

[Dakota]

I agree with your no-call. Even though she may have chosen to stop because of R1, that does not mean (in my view) that R1 interfered. Maybe she is polite. Maybe she is a timid player. Maybe she doesn't want to risk getting hurt. Maybe, maybe. You couldn't know, and in your judgment, she should have / could have been more aggressive in her pursuit of the batted ball. As I said, I agree with your no-call.

[mick]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

14U tournament, R1 on 2B, ball hit on ground towards F6. Happened twice in same game, to same F6. On one play the ball hit and skidded towards 2B; the other hit was well to the left of F6. ...[snip]....
She may have felt she would collide with R1, or she may have felt she couldn’t get to the ball anyway, or she may have simply froze. I required that she at least make an attempt to go to the ball and pull off at the last second or maybe even have some contact.



Agree? Or would you have called interference?


WMB

WMB,

YU.P.!
F6 quit on the ball; that's a coaching problem, not your's.

You didn't see her flinch, and like you indicated, the mental telepathy wasn't workin'. Also, we cannot expect the runner to freeze until F6 [finally] decides whether to make a play, or not.

Agree with "Got nuthin'.

[whiskers_ump]

Going on record with the got nothing here.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Maybe I'm missing it, but the one thing I do not see here is a statement affirming F6 actually had a valid opportunity to make a play on the batted ball.

If, in the umpire's judgment, the fielder had no possible attempt to field the ball, there is no INT.

[mick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Maybe I'm missing it, but the one thing I do not see here is a statement affirming F6 actually had a valid opportunity to make a play on the batted ball.

If, in the umpire's judgment, the fielder had no possible attempt to field the ball, there is no INT.

It's an unknown.
I think WMB was ready for a play, and then when F6 surprisingly quit and the opportunity to judge was lost, his mind asked, "Shucks, did something happen ?"