Interference (NFHS)

[Andy]

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

Had the exact same stitch in the Nats this year. I did not call INT.
As noted so many times, a runner cannot go pooof. She was already
in advance mode, SS saw her out of the corner of her eye and stopped
her advance toward the ball causing the two to bump. The ball was to
the 2nd base side of SS. Ball ended up going into short LC field. I signaled
OBS. Runner from 2nd went back to 2nd. I did not advance the
runner, cause in my opinion, she would not have made it. Had the SS
continued toward the ball I would have had INT.

Discussion point - Why would you have called INT if the SS continued to the ball, but did not call INT when she stopped? Did you think SS could have gotten to the ball?

Obviously, I was not there to see this play, I can just go by your description. From that, this sounds like INT to me if the SS could have gotten to the ball. The fact that she aborted her attempt due to the presence of the runner and to avoid a possible collision does not take away the INT call.

Just my opinion and trying to generate some discussion.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by Andy

Discussion point - Why would you have called INT if the SS continued to the ball, but did not call INT when she stopped? Did you think SS could have gotten to the ball?

Obviously, I was not there to see this play, I can just go by your description. From that, this sounds like INT to me if the SS could have gotten to the ball. The fact that she aborted her attempt due to the presence of the runner and to avoid a possible collision does not take away the INT call.

Just my opinion and trying to generate some discussion.

I see what you are saying and what I said probably caused your thinking.

I would have called INT had the SS continued to the ball immediately. Instead she
took a step back, causing the bump. No, I don't think once she stopped she any chance
of a play.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

I would have called INT had the SS continued to the ball immediately. Instead she took a step back, causing the bump. No, I don't think once she stopped she any chance
of a play.

What caused the SS to step back? An act of the fielder. What was the SS doing? Trying to execute a play on the ball.

By what you are writing you are insinuating that prior to the act of the runner, the SS had the ability to make a play. That being said you have INT, IMHO.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

this is more of a rant than anything.....Why doesn't it work that way? Why is the requirement that the fielder "goes poof" if they drop they ball but the ball is still next to them or we have OBS? But the runner can do pretty much anything they want and not have to disappear? (rant over)

I would disagree in part with your 2nd sentence...if the fielder is attempting to execute a play (ie fielding a batted ball) the fielder can be there without the ball.

There are two distinct differences if the fielder is in the act of fielding a batted ball then they have the right to the space. Now irish's 2nd sentence described a fielder in the act of tagging a player and dropping the ball. That is a different story. If defense has ball they have right to be anywhere (within reason don't get crazy proving me wrong) if they are fielding a batted ball they have the right to do that, within normal means(can't draw INT) but other than that they have to be out of the runners way. Why? Cause the powers that be wrote the rule that way!

I think of Irish's sentence as runner sliding into 3rd fielder there with ball to make tag blocking bag, legal slide dislodges the ball and runner can't get to base, as fielder is reaching for ball. By rule once fielder loses ball you have OBS on them. Is it fair? Don't know, don't care its the rules!! Someone has to have the right of way for lack of a better term....defense has that to field a batted ball, or once they are in possession of the ball, other than that offense has the right of way. Seems like a sharing thing to me maybe not fairly but both have their times to have the right of way to make their plays.

That being said I agree with you in that the offense is just a liable to have INT called on them IF the conditions are correct cause they didn't go "poof"! Like the OP if they take off on the pitch and cause INT with the SS IMJ it doesnt matter if they meant to, if they are guilty of INT call it!!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I think of Irish's sentence as runner sliding into 3rd fielder there with ball to make tag blocking bag, legal slide dislodges the ball and runner can't get to base, as fielder is reaching for ball. By rule once fielder loses ball you have OBS on them. Is it fair? Don't know, don't care its the rules!! Someone has to have the right of way for lack of a better term....defense has that to field a batted ball, or once they are in possession of the ball, other than that offense has the right of way. Seems like a sharing thing to me maybe not fairly but both have their times to have the right of way to make their plays.

Not completely there. If the fielder has possession of the ball and then drops it in the execution of a play, there must still be some action on the runner's part for an OBS call, it is not automatic. Example would be a player losing possession of the ball when tagging a sliding runner. The fielder met the requirement of having possession of the ball while impeding the runner's progress. Now, the ball drops. If the runner makes no further effort to advance while the fielder retreives the ball and makes a tag, IMO, there is no OBS.

That being said I agree with you in that the offense is just a liable to have INT called on them IF the conditions are correct cause they didn't go "poof"! Like the OP if they take off on the pitch and cause INT with the SS IMJ it doesnt matter if they meant to, if they are guilty of INT call it!!

Did anyone ever say that wasn't INT? I don't think anyone challenged the call as we all know it is judgment based upon what the umpire saw. I just asked why as the description offered was somewhat vague.

As it comes to the "going poof" issue, you need to remember the runner is supposed to be in the base path, the fielder is not without the ball. As much as it is the runner's responsibility to not commit an act of INT, intentional or not, with a defender attempting to execute a play within the parameter of the rules, it is the defender's responsibility to avoid obstructing a runner when not fielding a batted ball or in possession of the ball. If either fail to abide by their respective responsibilities, their team suffers the consequences. To me, that's as fair as it gets.

[DaveASA/FED]

I agree on both points. Just seemed that I read in some postings that the violation for not going poof was just for the defense, and I didnt agree with that. Sounds like we are in the same section, maybe even the same page

[Paul L]

I posted a play like this on the baseball board a few years ago. Batter hit a would-be two hopper to a charging shortstop. Runner from second was on a collision course with the shortstop. Shortstop, in my judgment in order to avoid a collision, stops and backs up a step, catching the ball after the third hop. By the time he could throw to F3, BR had crossed the bag and R2 was at third. But absent the interference, again in my judgment, shortstop would have fielded the ball on the second hop and BR would have been out by a couple of steps.

The consensus of the big dogs, both on the board and in my association, was that the runner did not interfere, that the shortstop gave up his right to field the ball on two hops by stopping, even if to avoid an imminent collision. In other words, a collision is required, at least in baseball, according to umps more experienced than I.

Requiring a collision is dangerous, and I prefer the softball interpretation, at least for players who do not shave.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

I see what you are saying and what I said probably caused your thinking.

I would have called INT had the SS continued to the ball immediately. Instead she
took a step back, causing the bump. No, I don't think once she stopped she any chance
of a play.

I guess I'm still not seeing why it wouldn't be INT here. If I see a SS moving laterally to field a batted ball, and I judge that she has a play, but she pulls up to avoid an imminent collision with a baserunner, I am most likely going to have an interference call.

Now if I judge that the SS stopped and created contact with the runner to draw an INT call, that's a different animal. If that's the case, the SS is no longer in the act of fielding a batted ball.

Glen - I'm not trying to argue or disagree with your call on the field, just trying to understand how the play unfolded without the benefit of seeing it live.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I posted a play like this on the baseball board a few years ago. Batter hit a would-be two hopper to a charging shortstop. Runner from second was on a collision course with the shortstop. Shortstop, in my judgment in order to avoid a collision, stops and backs up a step, catching the ball after the third hop. By the time he could throw to F3, BR had crossed the bag and R2 was at third. But absent the interference, again in my judgment, shortstop would have fielded the ball on the second hop and BR would have been out by a couple of steps.

The consensus of the big dogs, both on the board and in my association, was that the runner did not interfere, that the shortstop gave up his right to field the ball on two hops by stopping, even if to avoid an imminent collision. In other words, a collision is required, at least in baseball, according to umps more experienced than I.

Requiring a collision is dangerous, and I prefer the softball interpretation, at least for players who do not shave.

Here is where it gets dicey and perpetuates a softball/baseball myth that a player is out for running in front of a defender attempting to field a batted ball. Some weaker umpires will buy into that and make the call based on the myth assuming that they believe this is the path of least resistence.

A strong umpire will watch the fielder and judge his intent. If, in the umpire's judgment, the fielder has made a conscientious decision to stay put and play the ball, most likely it is not going to be INT. If the umpire believes the runner's actions are forcing the defender to into an undesired position to play the ball, most likely that is going to be INT.

What we cannot expect is a runner to forfeit their responsibility to attempt to advance simply because a batted ball is going to cross their path in the vicinity of a defender.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by Andy

I guess I'm still not seeing why it wouldn't be INT here. If I see a SS moving laterally to field a batted ball, and I judge that she has a play, but she pulls up to avoid an imminent collision with a baserunner, I am most likely going to have an interference call.

Now if I judge that the SS stopped and created contact with the runner to draw an INT call, that's a different animal. If that's the case, the SS is no longer in the act of fielding a batted ball.

Glen - I'm not trying to argue or disagree with your call on the field, just trying to understand how the play unfolded without the benefit of seeing it live.

Being in good position, I see the SS move toward the ball, then for some reason
stop, step back, bumping the runner. If she had continued slightly forward instead of
stepping back , IMO, there would not have been contact.

Added note: Once the play was over, the defensive coach did his job and came out.
I thought I was going to have to explain it to him, however, he addressed F6
with, "I have told you to play the ball. I know you don't want to get run over, but
go for the ball."
This team finished 4th in the 18U NAFA Nationals. [Yea Wade, Ca. team]

[Skahtboi]

Okay, let's put a twist on the SS scenario. We still have a runner advancing from 2nd to 3rd, but this time the runner clearly avoids the F6 and her play by running to the inside of the diamond. The play carries F6 to the third base side, and after making a play she a)takes two steps, as if she is going to throw to first, and collides with the runner, b)takes 4-5 steps, still acting as though she is going to try a play at first, and collides with the runner. Then what do you have?

[DaveASA/FED]

I think I'd have to see it to call that. Seriously but, I am thinking you would have nothing, if the fielder has possession of the ball then they are not liable for OBS, if runner is not doing anything to cause INT they are ok, so you play on. how am I suppose to know if F6 is studder steping to throw or to lure runner closer so they can get a tag, then throw for a double play?

Now when you get hairy is when the contact is made right after they release the ball on a throw to 1st! Then what do you have?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

Being in good position, I see the SS move toward the ball, then for some reason
stop, step back, bumping the runner. If she had continued slightly forward instead of
stepping back , IMO, there would not have been contact.

Added note: Once the play was over, the defensive coach did his job and came out.
I thought I was going to have to explain it to him, however, he addressed F6
with, "I have told you to play the ball. I know you don't want to get run over, but
go for the ball."
This team finished 4th in the 18U NAFA Nationals. [Yea Wade, Ca. team]

Glen - Thanks for the explanation, makes sense now. From that description, it sounds as if the SS either:

a) gave up on her attempt to field the ball
or
b) tried to "draw" an INT call by creating contact with the runner

Either way, I agree with an OBS call.


Oustside of this play, I still maintain that a fielder moving to field a ball and has a play, but stops to avoid an imminent collision with a baserunner, will usually get an INT call from me.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I think I'd have to see it to call that. Seriously but, I am thinking you would have nothing, if the fielder has possession of the ball then they are not liable for OBS, if runner is not doing anything to cause INT they are ok, so you play on. how am I suppose to know if F6 is studder steping to throw or to lure runner closer so they can get a tag, then throw for a double play?

Now when you get hairy is when the contact is made right after they release the ball on a throw to 1st! Then what do you have?

The reason I ask is because it happened last year in a HS game I was calling. Slow runner from second, F6 feigns to her left to catch a rather hard hit grounder, turned and took 4 steps into the runner. No throw. She was obviously fishing for INT, which I didn't give her. DC came unglued, not to the point of asking to leave, though.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Andy

Outside of this play, I still maintain that a fielder moving to field a ball and has a play, but stops to avoid an imminent collision with a baserunner, will usually get an INT call from me.

This interference situation, along with those that are close to it but something slightly different is judged by the umpire, is much discussed here and on the field when it occurs.

Assume R1 on 2B and an infield grounder where F6 would be the fielder who would be protected.

Let's assume the baserunner has done nothing to indicate anything other than running the bases full speed.

Let's assume the fielder has started to move to field the ball, but stops or slows or changes path and then proceeds after the runner has passed.

Let's assume that if SOMEBODY hadn't stopped / slowed / changed path, there would have been a collision

How do you judge interference here vs. dumb move fielder?