Inf?

[Far far away ..]

Hi Folks,

New ump this year, covering Adult Co-Ed. Unfortunately all our games are worked solo, resulting in rare opportunities to discuss situations post game (as I don't like discussing plays with players who are qualified umpires that were in the game, 'cause they were in the game).

Apologies if I'm asking something already covered, but having lurked here a while I don't remember this kinda question.

Anyway, to the question:

R1 and R2 on 2B and 1B, ball hit to outfield and as R2 is a slow runner the only play is at 2B for a force out by a 2 or 3 steps. Fielder comes set next to the base in case of another play but R1 and BR are both stopped on 3B and 1B. R2 then collides with the fielder, no intent, but since theres no advance of either remaining runner I just call time. As I walk back to the plate I think damn, did I just let an INF go there. My feeling was that I'm OK as there was no advance and so there was no play and therefore ultimately no INF. However, the rules seem to be very specific about umpire judgement about potential outcomes in terms of OBS (i.e. place obstructed runners where you judge they would have reached) but not so for INF.

So, was I right or should I have gone straight for INF once the runner collided with the fielder during live ball?

Aside: no comment or query from the defense, so the debate was purely in my head!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Welcome aboard.

I'm not sure I totally understand your scenario; are you saying an out was made at 2nd, and you are concerned about an already retired runner committing interference? (Note: we normally shorten to INT, not INF.)

If so, then the key is determining if there was a "play" (an opportunity to retire an offensive player) or not. If there was a "play", you have interference; if all runners are standing on a base and clearly not in jeopardy, there cannot be interference.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Far far away ..

Hi Folks,

New ump this year, covering Adult Co-Ed. Unfortunately all our games are worked solo, resulting in rare opportunities to discuss situations post game (as I don't like discussing plays with players who are qualified umpires that were in the game, 'cause they were in the game).

Apologies if I'm asking something already covered, but having lurked here a while I don't remember this kinda question.

Anyway, to the question:

R1 and R2 on 2B and 1B, ball hit to outfield and as R2 is a slow runner the only play is at 2B for a force out by a 2 or 3 steps. Fielder comes set next to the base in case of another play but R1 and BR are both stopped on 3B and 1B. R2 then collides with the fielder, no intent, but since theres no advance of either remaining runner I just call time. As I walk back to the plate I think damn, did I just let an INF go there. My feeling was that I'm OK as there was no advance and so there was no play and therefore ultimately no INF. However, the rules seem to be very specific about umpire judgement about potential outcomes in terms of OBS (i.e. place obstructed runners where you judge they would have reached) but not so for INF.

So, was I right or should I have gone straight for INF once the runner collided with the fielder during live ball?

Aside: no comment or query from the defense, so the debate was purely in my head!

Interference has to do with interfering with a play. No play, no interference. Of course, if the runner from third takes off after the collision it gets more complicated.
________
Flowerspicy

[Far far away ..]

Thanks guys

Sorry 'bout the shorthand.

Yes, out was made clearly at 2nd and the retired runner then collided with fielder. One of those "oops sorry" collisions.

There was no further play because the other base runners were firmly fixed to the bases they were at. I like to think (easy after the fact) if they had been advancing that I would have made the INT(!) call. And yes of course there's that interesting possibility of an advance after the collision, luckily I didn't have to deal with that as time was called very soon thereafter.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by Far far away ..

Fielder comes set next to the base in case of another play... R2 then collides with the fielder... One of those "oops sorry" collisions.

Welcome.

With no play in your case, I agree there was no interference.

Expounding a bit more on the situation if there had been a play: While it is true that interference can and often is unintentionaly, remember that this could be just a "train wreck" if in your judgement the fielder was properly running their base. I envision from your original discription that the fielder touched 2B for the force out, then took a step toward 1B, right into the path that R2 was running. If R2 was essentially already "right there" and the fielder just kind of took a step in that direction and then the collision happened, it was probably a good no-call even if there had been a play.

Of course if I'm envisioning that incorrectly... nevermind.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Just out of curiosity, did the fielder step in between R2 and the base? If so, I may not call INT even if there was another play.

PLEASE NOTE, I did not say I would not rule INT, I said I may not. As usual, all these are HTBT.

[Far far away ..]

Actually what happened was the fielder tagged the base and then took a step to the 3rd base side checking the runners on both third and then first bases. I suspect what happened was the runner anticipating a double play attempt at first also stepped that side of the base line (so as not to interfere with the anticipated play) and then couldn't stop in time to avoid the fielder.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Far far away ..

Actually what happened was the fielder tagged the base and then took a step to the 3rd base side checking the runners on both third and then first bases. I suspect what happened was the runner anticipating a double play attempt at first also stepped that side of the base line (so as not to interfere with the anticipated play) and then couldn't stop in time to avoid the fielder.

Hence the reason a retired runner is not required to "peel" off to avoid an INT call.

However, with that information, I believe INT is a definite possibility had there been a play with which to interfere.