rule 8 section 2 F

needmore

I am a relatively new umpire and I am having problems with this rule> Everytime I ask fellow umpires for theis interpretation it differs. The calls in questions usually involve the ball batted toward the shortstop and the runner on second breaking for third. My interpreation is interference occurs if contact is made between the runner and fielder whether " intent" was made or not by the runner. Additionally interference can be called if the runner stops and obstructs the view of the shortstop with intent.

I was observing a recent game and this rule was enforced when the runner on second took off with contact and never hesitated. The runner did not have to jump the ball nor was there any contact made between the fielder and runner. In fact the there was several feet of space between the two. The explanation given was that the runner "obstructed" the fielder from clear view by running between the ball and the fielder thus the runner interfered with the fielding of the ball. I disagree but I'm still somewhat of a rookie umpire. Any feedback?

IRISHMAFIA

needmore wrote
I am a relatively new umpire and I am having problems with this rule> Everytime I ask fellow umpires for theis interpretation it differs. The calls in questions usually involve the ball batted toward the shortstop and the runner on second breaking for third. My interpreation is interference occurs if contact is made between the runner and fielder whether " intent" was made or not by the runner. Additionally interference can be called if the runner stops and obstructs the view of the shortstop with intent.

Contact is irrelevant to the call, though it makes it an easier sell.

I was observing a recent game and this rule was enforced when the runner on second took off with contact and never hesitated. The runner did not have to jump the ball nor was there any contact made between the fielder and runner. In fact the there was several feet of space between the two. The explanation given was that the runner "obstructed" the fielder from clear view by running between the ball and the fielder thus the runner interfered with the fielding of the ball. I disagree but I'm still somewhat of a rookie umpire. Any feedback?

Bull! It may have been INT, but the "space" between the two and the vision are also irrelevant. There is nothing which guarantees a fielder with a "clear view" of the batted ball.

Unless the runner actually committed an act of INT, this sounds like nothing to me.

vcblue

R1 on second, pop fly to F6. R1 run to within a foot of F6. R1 then sharply cut behind F6. R1 movements momentarily distracted F6. I should have call Int but didn't, I hesitated and F6 caught the ball for the 3rd out. I saw the 3rd base coach applauded F1's base running.

I went to the coach and told him I should have called INT and will next time. He said, "there was no contact". I said, "there is no contacted needed just my judgement that she INT". I then said, "heck I might even eject you for unsportmanship if I see it again".

There was one other opportunity were I might have saw it. I didn't.

IRISHMAFIA

vcblue wrote
R1 on second, pop fly to F6. R1 run to within a foot of F6. R1 then sharply cut behind F6. F1 movements momentarily distracted F6.

You are contemplating calling INT because the pitcher distracted the shortstop?

Boy, you're tough!

SRW

vcblue wrote
I saw the 3rd base coach applauded F1's base running.

Probably wishing that his R1 could run the bases as well as F1.

😉

MichaelVA2000

IRISHMAFIA wrote
You are contemplating calling INT because the pitcher distracted the shortstop?

Boy, you're tough!

Ahhhh c'mon....I contemplate an out on every 3 balls 2 strike count.....I know the pitcher is wanting to throw a strike.😃

vcblue

Last edited by vcblue; Today at 01:04pm. Reason: Because Irishmafia and SRW made fun me 🙁 HA