A couple situations...

rmiszta · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 12:12am

NFHS Junior Varsity Game

SITUATION #1
Top of 7th with 2 outs and home team leading by 1 run. Tie run on 2nd base. Batter hits grounder toward short who comes in to make the play. As she is coming in, right about where the baseline is from 2nd to 3rd, the short stop cuts off the running lane causing the runner and herself to dance alittle. A play could have been made to throw out the batter runner at first.
Your thoughts:
1) interference on runner, ball dead, game over.
2) obstruction on short stop, delayed dead ball and protect runner to whatever you feel, most likely 3rd.
3) just a tangle up and neither of the above. Let play continue and call nothing.

SITUATION #2
As batter runner runs to first on a live batted ball, the coach yells to continue to second and pats her on the back on the way by. Any call to make here.

Thanks for your input....Bob 13. By the way, partner called #1 in situation #1. I felt it was the right call. Luckily we got outta there without any problem.

WestMichiganBlue · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 01:44am

Sit #1 I wasn't there, but I am inclined to protect the fielder so I probably would also have the Int. BTW - the game situation (2 outs, tie run on), IMO, should not enter into your call process. Too much like basketball when two minutes are left in a tight game, anything goes. As far as I am concerned, you have to make that call, even if it is the game ending call.

Sit #2 JV game, early in the season - probably let it go. But will get in a casual comment to the coach, such as "no contact with the runners, Coach or I'll ring you up for Int. next time.

WMB

bluezebra · #3 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 02:02am

#1..Interference.

#2..It's nothing. No assistance with a pat on the back. Though there might be a sexual harassment charge.

Bob

Steve M · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 05:37am

I agree with Bob - on all 3 points.

Interference for #1, the fielder has an absolute right to be there and the runner has an absolute duty to avoid interference.

A congratulatory pat on the back is not assisting a runner, so that's nothing. But that pat on the back would be something I'd not do if I coached - way too many lawyers out there.

Steve M

IRISHMAFIA · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 07:46am

Well, I guess I'm going to be the anal knucklehead here 'cause if it is a live ball, I'm ruling the runner out for assistance.

If the ball is leaving the field of play, no problem. However, I don't see where there is cause for a congratualory pat on the back as the runner apparently hasn't reach her final destination safely.

Would you ignore the same thing happening at 3B? Probably not and if you are going to make the call at 3B anytime during the game, you need to make it at 1B anytime during the game. It is the coach's responsibility to stay out of the play. There are also two teams out there that expect you to call the rules and, as we always seem to be reminded, "both ways!"

What if the same thing happens two inning later, but this time it looks more like a push? Do you ignore it then? Where does one draw the line over the seriousness of a violation and whether to call it or not? I'm not suggesting an umpire guess at it, but if I see the coach contact the runner and it is plain as day it occured, I would want to make that call and better earlier than later.

JMHO,

5 sport ref · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 07:58am

I agree with with the majority here ruling interference and game over. The fielder has the right to make the play on the ball and the runner has the responsibility to avoid the fielder. The same as if the ball was a pop up and the infielder was camped in the baseline it would be up to the runner to avoid the contact. Any contact in that situation would be interference.

I've got nothing in the second situation, but would mention it to the coach between innings.

Dakota · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 10:33am

Quote:

3) just a tangle up and neither of the above. Let play continue and call nothing.

Since I agree with interference in sit#1, I thought I'd comment on this. The "train wreck" no call applies to a thrown ball, not a batted ball.

Sit#2 - the rule is against "physically assisting," not touching. A push is assisting. A touch is not necessarily assisting. Suppose the coach & runner had exchanged a high 5 on the way by? Is that assisting? No. The coach's pat on the back would the HTBT judgment, but I'd probably not call it, but warn the coach he should cut it out.

CecilOne · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 02:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
The "train wreck" no call applies to a thrown ball, not a batted ball.

Sit#2 - the rule is against "physically assisting," not touching. A push is assisting. A touch is not necessarily assisting. Suppose the coach & runner had exchanged a high 5 on the way by? Is that assisting? No. The coach's pat on the back would the HTBT judgment, but I'd probably not call it, but warn the coach he should cut it out.

Ditto to both and I believe we as umpires must judge whether there was assistance or just touching (for the sake of the play, not the offensiveness).

robbiep · #9 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 03:10pm

Hey!
Here's the deal.. In situation #1 nothing was said about what happened to the ball being fielded..Did the SS misplay the ball? Did she have to go to her left or right and the runner interfere when she did so? I heard they 'did a little dance'. Was there any contact? Did the runner do something intentional? Maybe the runner was trying to avoid the fielder to the best of her abilities. It's true that this is on of those plays you have to see, but with info given it sounds like either nothing or obstruction. -RP

CecilOne · #10 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 03:16pm

It sounds to me that the only thing it can't be is obstruction. The wording "herself to dance alittle. A play could have been made " says that the SS playing the ball had to adjust, so it has to be interference. The fielder's opportunity to play the ball takes precedence over the runner's base path.

Dakota · #11 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 03:28pm

Quote:

Originally posted by CecilOne
It sounds to me that the only thing it can't be is obstruction. The wording "herself to dance alittle. A play could have been made " says that the SS playing the ball had to adjust, so it has to be interference. The fielder's opportunity to play the ball takes precedence over the runner's base path.

Agree completely.

whiskers_ump · #12 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 05:32pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robbiep
[B]Hey!

" Was there any contact? "

You don't have to have contact for interference!

glen

robbiep · #13 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 05:51pm

OK-
You guys are not getting my drift..In situation #1, why are they 'dancing'? Is they ball through? If it is then there is no other call but obstruction because the fielder's opportunity to field the ball is over. Contact is just one criteria for interference, so don't take that to the 'nth' degree..Yes, the fielder has every right to field the ball, however if the runner is just doing her job i.e. trying to avoid her or'dancing'and she does so, without contact, and she doesn't do anything intentional how can you call interference? RP

Dakota · #14 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 27, 2003, 06:23pm

The fielder has an absolute right to try to field the ball.

The runner has an obligation to not interfere.

Quote:

As she is coming in, right about where the baseline is from 2nd to 3rd, the short stop cuts off the running lane causing the runner and herself to dance alittle. A play could have been made to throw out the batter runner at first.

The fielder is not at fault for "cutting off the running lane" or for "causing the runner ... to dance a little." Why? Because attempting to field a batted ball gives the fielder the right to impede the runner (ASA 1-OBSTRUCTION-B-2). The runner is most likely guilty of interference, because she does not have the right to the running lane when a fielder is attempting to field a ball there (ASA 8-8-J-1). It was the runner who was in the wrong place, not the fielder. The runner had no right to be charging into the area where the fielder was attempting to field the batted ball.

It doesn't matter if the ball was through if the fielder muffed the play because she held up to avoid a collision; the runner interfered by causing the fielder to hold up or to take her eyes off the ball, or ...

CecilOne · #15 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 28, 2003, 07:49am

Quote:

Originally posted by robbiep
OK-
You guys are not getting my drift..In situation #1, why are they 'dancing'? Is they ball through? ... snip ... without contact, and she doesn't do anything intentional how can you call interference? RP

You are correct that we are not getting your drift if the prior answers didn't cover it.
As to whether the ball is through, the phrase "As she is coming in" in the original question means going toward the ball (IMO).
Also, contact and intent do not matter, just interfering or not.