Interference - Is intent Required?

[ACES Coach]

Is there ever a case where interference would not lead to at least one out?

The call on this play was "no call". The score at the time was 8-7 in a championship game at the "A" level. The umpire stated that the interference was not "intentional", so both runners were safe. The call was then protested by the coach stating that the interference does not need to be "intentional" to be called. The protest committee also determined that since the runner was on the bag at the time of contact and that the contact was not "intentional", then this was considered incidental contact and "no call".

It is beyond my comprehension how an infielder waiting to catch a ball can be contacted (in the face and actually drawing blood) by a runner and the fact that the runners foot is touching the base results in a no call. Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by ACES Coach

Is there ever a case where interference would not lead to at least one out?

The call on this play was "no call". The score at the time was 8-7 in a championship game at the "A" level. The umpire stated that the interference was not "intentional", so both runners were safe. The call was then protested by the coach stating that the interference does not need to be "intentional" to be called. The protest committee also determined that since the runner was on the bag at the time of contact and that the contact was not "intentional", then this was considered incidental contact and "no call".

It is beyond my comprehension how an infielder waiting to catch a ball can be contacted (in the face and actually drawing blood) by a runner and the fact that the runners foot is touching the base results in a no call. Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?

Interference is a judgement call. In their judgement the contact was incidental...hence they ruled no interference. R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st. Play on.
You obviously disagree with their judgement, but it's a judgement call as so many calls are...balls, strikes, safe, out, fair, foul etc.
Remember, it was posted earlier that most "was this interference?" sitchs that are posted are HTBT type plays.
BTW....how was a protest allowed to be lodged on a judgement call?

[MigoP]

Rule 8.8 art 13 NFHS.
If the runner is in contact with the base she cannot be called out for interference unless she intentionally interfered. Momentum does not constitute intentional. If her momentum carries her to the base and the fielders there to make a play, both have a right to be there. Runner just cannot intentionally interfere. The severity of the impact is irrelevant.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by ACES Coach

Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?

Ignore for a minute that there was a "size difference" between the two players (totally irrelevant to the playing rules), or that the contact "drew blood" (again, irrelevant to the playing rules, and an unfortunate side effect of the requirement for a runner to wear a hard plastic helmet and face guard). Equally irrelevant is the score being 8-7, this being a championship game, or that it was "A" level ball. None of that matters and the fact that you threw in all those extraneous details leads me to think that you have more of an emotional investment in this call than just seeing that the right call was made.

ASA, Rule 8-8-M: A runner is not out...When hit by a batted ball while in contact with a base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or a fielder making a play.

There are two questions for the umpire to answer to make this call: 1) Was the runner in contact with the base, and; 2) Did the runner intentionally interfere with the fielder making a play. Apparently, the umpire that made this call answered "yes" to question #1 and "no" to question #2. And, if he did, then his call was correct. The contact was incidental and there was no interference. Live ball, play on.

Commenting on other points raised:

- How could a protest be lodged on this play? The umpire explained to the coach that the interference had to be intentional. The coach's contention was that it did not need to be intentional. So, he was protesting the interpretation of the playing rule (requirement of intent), not the umpire's judgment.

- Some in this thread seem to be stating that on a fair fly ball, if a runner does interfere with the catch that ball is dead and the batter-runner is always placed on first base. Am I reading that correctly?

The "Exception" immediately following rule 8-7-L says otherwise.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Okay, let's stop here. Was hoping someone would come back with this after my previous post.

Speaking ASA

Fact of life:

8.7.J.1 stats it is INT when a runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball, which this is.

The Effect: The ball is dead. All other runners must return.
The Note: When runners are called out for INT, the BR is awarded 1B
The Exception to the Note: If the INT prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, fair or foul, with ordinary effort, the batter is also out.

Assumption:

8.8.M could be considered an exception though it is worded addressing being actually hit by the batted ball.

My interpretation:

RS 33.A.1.c gives the runner relief from vacating the space for the defender to catch the ball. It does not give the runner absolute exemption from commiting an act of INT simply because s/he kept contact with the base while not being in control of their own body.

[CecilOne]

Last night’s LLWS Wash vs.Minn. Runner on 1st, popup directly over base, F3 trips over base (or runner’s leg ?) while backing up to catch the ball and misses it. Ball lands fair, runner out at 2nd on force. Runner clearly leaning as far away as possible while keeping contact.

TH said runner must vacate the base to allow the catch, even though he would obviously be out on catch with fielder touching the base.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, let's stop here. Was hoping someone would come back with this after my previous post.

Speaking ASA

Fact of life:

8.7.J.1 stats it is INT when a runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball, which this is.

The Effect: The ball is dead. All other runners must return.
The Note: When runners are called out for INT, the BR is awarded 1B
The Exception to the Note: If the INT prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, fair or foul, with ordinary effort, the batter is also out.

Assumption:

8.8.M could be considered an exception though it is worded addressing being actually hit by the batted ball.

My interpretation:

RS 33.A.1.c gives the runner relief from vacating the space for the defender to catch the ball. It does not give the runner absolute exemption from commiting an act of INT simply because s/he kept contact with the base while not being in control of their own body.

Great job on summarizing of all the applicable ASA rules & RS citings pertinent to the sitch.....and all in the same post.

After being off the mark on pretty much every opinion I've had on this play, I think I've got it straight in my mind.

I have two questions (hopefully my last). The first has to do with 8.8.M. When you say it "could be considered the exception...." as umpires are we on solid ASA ground if we applied it that way in a game? I'm not questioning the statement, I just want to make sure I'm correctly understanding the way you used the word "could."

The second, there could possibly be two outs called on the play...not likely but possible?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

I have two questions (hopefully my last). The first has to do with 8.8.M. When you say it "could be considered the exception...." as umpires are we on solid ASA ground if we applied it that way in a game? I'm not questioning the statement, I just want to make sure I'm correctly understanding the way you used the word "could."

Its the way I perceive some people will read the rule in spite of the punctuation:

THE RUNNER IS NOT OUT:

M. When hit by a batted ball while in contact with the base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or a fielder making a play.

Unfortunately, instead of being applied as an exclusion for being hit with a batted ball while on the base, I think some would cite or a fielder making a play. as a complete and separate application as to a runner being in contact with the base instead of applying to being hit with a batted ball.

The second, there could possibly be two outs called on the play...not likely but possible?

I don't see why not. The offensive players need to be responsible for their actions, intentional or accidental. The accidental action in question, still affected the defenses ability to make a play on a batted ball that more likely than not have been caught for an out.

Okay, now for all those who think it is fair to just ignore the obvious catch since the team would lose a runner more advanced, think about the same play at 1B and Crystal Bustos interferes and Natalie Watley was the BR. Watley running instead of Bustos? Yeah, I see no advantage in that swap.

And obviously, or at least I think it is obvious, we should not have separate rules for areas associatated with different bases.

Does the ruling suck because it seems unfair? Again, there are two teams out there and if one does things right and the other doesn't, why should the latter get the benefit of doubt?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Its the way I perceive some people will read the rule in spite of the punctuation...

Unfortunately, instead of being applied as an exclusion for being hit with a batted ball while on the base, I think some would cite or a fielder making a play as a complete and separate application as to a runner being in contact with the base instead of applying to being hit with a batted ball.

That's exactly what gave me pause on this one. As it's written, 8-8-M seems like two rules rolled into one: One rule about a runner being hit by a batted ball while in contact with a base and another rule about a runner in contact with the base interfereing with a fielder making a play. By "merging" these two separate scenarios, it does seem to make the rule less clear.

Apparently, both the umpire making this call and the protest committee reviewing the protest consider "a fielder making a play" as a "complete and separate application".

The poster asked the question: "Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?" If there is, then it's got to be this one.

Personally, my own sense of the "spirit and intent" of the rules would call the runner out for interference and the batter-runner out because the interference prevented a catch. But I don't like to base rulings on "my own personal sense of right and wrong". I like to base them on actual rules and interpretations. The only problem here is that the rule that seems to apply isn't 100% clear in its intent.

[ACES Coach]

The protest was accepted because it was agreed that there was interference on the play, it's just that it was not intentional. This is the basis of the entire question.

If the umpires have determined that there was interference does it make a difference if there was "intent". That is the title of the thread.

If the umpires did not feel there was interference, they wouldn't have accepted the protest. In the write up after the game, the umpires wrote that there was no "intentional interference".

It would be my understanding from the rule book that intent has nothing to do with interference. Interference is an automatic call.

Interference without intent - 1 out
Interference with intent - 2 outs

The umpires did decide that the interference was not intentional, which should have resulted in just R1 being out. I am looking for some justification that would allow this to be a "no call" after interference has been determined.

[BretMan]

There seems to be some circular reasoning or problem with semantics going on here.

You can't rule "unintentional interference". It is either interference or it is not. If the umpire thinks that the act did not meet the definition of interference, then he shouldn't rule interference. If he thinks it did, then there are penalties to apply (in this case, at least one and possibly two outs).

If he thinks that rule 8-8-M means that interference by a runner in contact with a base must be an intentional act, and he judges whatever the runner did wasn't intentional, then there was no interference on the play- not "interference, but we ignore it" or "interference without a penalty".

So I don't really get "there was interference on the play, but it wasn't intentional" as a good explanation of the call. What this would really have to mean would be "there was contact on the play, but it was not interference".

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

So I don't really get "there was interference on the play, but it wasn't intentional" as a good explanation of the call. What this would really have to mean would be "there was contact on the play, but it was not interference".

Agree. If it is INT, someone should be ruled out. If no one is ruled out, it may have been contact, intentional or unintentional, it may have been confusing, it may or may not have been fair, but it cannot be INT.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

ASA, Rule 8-8-M: A runner is not out...When hit by a batted ball while in contact with a base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or a fielder making a play.

This rule is irrelevant... it applies to a runner being struck by a BALL. The OP is interference, plain and simple. The runner has to actively avoid a fielder making a play on a ball. Intent is irrelevant.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by BretMan

That's exactly what gave me pause on this one. As it's written, 8-8-M seems like two rules rolled into one: One rule about a runner being hit by a batted ball while in contact with a base and another rule about a runner in contact with the base interfereing with a fielder making a play. By "merging" these two separate scenarios, it does seem to make the rule less clear.

Apparently, both the umpire making this call and the protest committee reviewing the protest consider "a fielder making a play" as a "complete and separate application".

The poster asked the question: "Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?" If there is, then it's got to be this one.

Personally, my own sense of the "spirit and intent" of the rules would call the runner out for interference and the batter-runner out because the interference prevented a catch.
That was my initial reaction (2 outs) also when I first read the OP and I got shouted down.

But I don't like to base rulings on "my own personal sense of right and wrong". I like to base them on actual rules and interpretations.
Me either.

The only problem here is that the rule that seems to apply isn't 100% clear in its intent.

Until these most recent posts by IRISH and you, this is where I've had trouble seeing the "forest through the tress" regarding 8-8-M.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Personally, my own sense of the "spirit and intent" of the rules would call the runner out for interference and the batter-runner out because the interference prevented a catch..

Are you saying then that on a ground ball where a runner runs into a fielder while fielding the ball you're going to call that runner out for interference AND the BR out because the interference prevented a throw to first? Or would you do this only if you thought they would have gotten both the runner and the BR without the interference?

IMHO, the out for interference for causing the missed catch replaces the out for the catch. That player leaves and the BR goes to 1B.