Interference (NFHS)
Do you have to have contact for INT in HS ball? Can't remember.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thanks |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
"Runner from 2B to 3B caused SS to stand up and stop"
Umpires judgement? if so, end of story ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In whiskers case if the ball was near 2nd base and SS was playing toward 3rd there isn't as strong of a case for INT, but if ss is center, or shading to 2nd in that case you have a stronger possibility of INT, again location pre and post hit and ball location actions of everyone involved all go together, so nobody is right and nobody is wrong based on typed descriptions...have to see it to believe it is true in this case. To your OP, I can see if everything was right, where you could no doubt have INT on your play! Coach was wrong all it takes is umpire judgement that the runner interfered with the fielders chance to field a batted ball. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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!! |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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 :cool:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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] |
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?
|
I think I'd have to see it to call that.:D 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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Tom - I hate to say it, but key word here is "judgement". I understand that this is a cop-out, but I have to see the play to judge. I will say that if the ball is hit in the vicinity of a baserunner, the onus is on the baserunner to be aware that a fielder may be in the area and avoid interfering with that fielder. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That is what is so hard in these plays, there is so much judgement involved and it takes so many little details to form the correct judgement it happens very often in this format (typeing a picture) that something is left out so it is hard to rule based on words. The devils in the details as they say, one small action can change an INT call to OBS...or an INT to nothing just depends on the exact situation! |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31am. |