Three crazy plays...

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

Sitch 1: After signaling and calling infield fly, my partner yelled dead ball and called R1 out for interference. We also rule that R1 interfered with F6 attempt at catching the fair fly ball (infield fly), and ruled the batter was out as well. Inning over.

So, in your judgment, would the fielder have had an opportunity to make a play on a runner had they not been hindered? If not, I've got nothing. The BR is already out, so I'd not focus on the "she hindered the defense from catching a fly ball" but rather on the "she hindered the defense from making a play on a runner."

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

Sitch 2: I called this play, as I was looking for whether the runner interfered with F4's opportunity at fielding the batted ball. Since the ball had already passed F3, I was looking to make sure that F4 could make a play, and therefore the runner interfered with the fielder's opportunity to make that play. Dead ball, R3 is out. All runners return to the last base occupied at the time of the INT, and B4 gets first base.

I agree with Mike. Making this call hinges on whether or not F4 had an opportunity to make a play on a runner. If not, we've got nothing.

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

Sitch 3: Partner shouts dead ball, I mirror his call. We determine R1 out for interference. We also ruled that because R1 interfered with F3's opportunity to catch fair fly ball, the batter was also ruled out.

I'm not so certain I agree with Mike on this one. Let's assume that there would have been NO chance of the defense retiring R1. It sounds to me that the defense was still able to execute their play, which was making the catch. So where's the INT? The ball was caught, the BR is out, and R1 still made it safely back to base.

If the defense would have had a chance to somehow retire R1 as well (say, for instance... F1 was covering 1B, and the contact caused F3 to stumble and not be able to make a throw), then yes, I would have INT, as R1 hindered F3's ability to make a play.

Perhaps the better question to ask would be: at what point do we kill this play? At the bump? Or give it a moment to see what happens? We've frequently been told that we're not killing the play soon enough on an INT call, but we also hear that we're sometimes making the calls too soon and should slow down.

I say that in this specific situation, let the play unfold and see if the defense is actually prevented from executing a play on a batter-runner or runner.

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

Coaches, that's a warning. My partner made the call, and that is that. Because you guys are questioning and acting in this way, your catcher is now showing unsportsmanlike behavior. Enough.

Did I handle that correctly? What would you have done? (14U PONY National Qualifier Tourney - semifinal game, 4th inning... not that it matters much, but I wanted to set you up with some background)

I guess it's a matter of personal preference. If you think the comments are directed towards you, I'd say the way you handled it was just fine by me.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I'm not so certain I agree with Mike on this one. Let's assume that there would have been NO chance of the defense retiring R1. It sounds to me that the defense was still able to execute their play, which was making the catch. So where's the INT? The ball was caught, the BR is out, and R1 still made it safely back to base.

If the defense would have had a chance to somehow retire R1 as well (say, for instance... F1 was covering 1B, and the contact caused F3 to stumble and not be able to make a throw), then yes, I would have INT, as R1 hindered F3's ability to make a play.

Perhaps the better question to ask would be: at what point do we kill this play? At the bump? Or give it a moment to see what happens? We've frequently been told that we're not killing the play soon enough on an INT call, but we also hear that we're sometimes making the calls too soon and should slow down.

I say that in this specific situation, let the play unfold and see if the defense is actually prevented from executing a play on a batter-runner or runner.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Mike on this one. I do agree you have to slow down the situation and make sure you see the play and that you process the actions but once that runner hindered or impeded that fielder you have INT. So the ball is dead at the moment that the contact was made (or it was dead then even if you processed the play in your mind for a second or two then called it) and all actions after that don't matter. INT is an immediant dead ball, we can't let the play run it's course and see what happens and then rule on it.....that's what a delayed dead ball is (like OBS) but INT is an immmediant dead ball. Once you see it call it and the play was dead at the moment the infraction occurred.