Interference (NFHS)

[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.

[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.