Interference - Is intent Required?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by vcblue

KJ: It doesn't matter if the ball was caught or not. I have (2) R2 is out for interference. Batter is safe at first.

By rule you must judge intent when a runner is on the bag and INT occurs. She may say her intent was not to interfere with the play, but her intent was to get back to the base. She just did it badly and while keeping a foot on the bag caused the interference.

The reason I would not call a second out is because R1 was on 2nd, therefore there was no additional play to support the call.

VC...
It's not that it doesn't matter....it's that it could possibly matter.
R2 interfered with F4 who was attempting to catch a pop-up.
R2 is called out for interference.
If (in my judgement) R2's interference prevented F4 from catching the ball for an out on the BR, (as in F4 is right underneath the ball with her glove extended to make the catch)....I've got the BR out in addition to R2. Two outs.

[vcblue]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

VC...
It's not that it doesn't matter....it's that it could possibly matter.
R2 interfered with F4 who was attempting to catch a pop-up.
R2 is called out for interference.
If (in my judgement) R2's interference prevented F4 from catching the ball for an out on the BR, (as in F4 is right underneath the ball with her glove extended to make the catch)....I've got the BR out in addition to R2. Two outs.

KJ: What opportunity did the fielder have to make a play on another player(8-7-P)? Or, how was she preventing a double play from happening (8-7-J-Effect)? These are the only two reasons to get the 2nd out, and the OP makes it clear that there was no possibility of a play to get that 2nd out (in addition to the catch). There was only R1 on the bases. R1 was on the base when she committed the interference. By book rule you call INT on R1 "Dead Ball" BR get's first.

Now let's say R1 was on 1st and she INT with F4 close to second. Then sure, 2 outs. But once again this does not matter whether she caught the ball or not. Just my judgment that she could have caught the pop up, and my judgment that the runner was far enough away from the base that she would not have made it back in time to tag up.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by vcblue

Now let's say R1 was on 1st and she INT with F4 close to second. Then sure, 2 outs. But once again this does not matter whether she caught the ball or not. Just my judgment that she could have caught the pop up, and my judgment that the runner was far enough away from the base that she would not have made it back in time to tag up.

What's wrong with the rule book if a 2nd out can be recorded on a fly ball over foul territory that could be easily caught, but not on a fair ball?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by vcblue

KJ: What opportunity did the fielder have to make a play on another player(8-7-P)? Or, how was she preventing a double play from happening (8-7-J-Effect)? These are the only two reasons to get the 2nd out, and the OP makes it clear that there was no possibility of a play to get that 2nd out (in addition to the catch). There was only R1 on the bases. R1 was on the base when she committed the interference. By book rule you call INT on R1 "Dead Ball" BR get's first.

Now let's say R1 was on 1st and she INT with F4 close to second. Then sure, 2 outs. But once again this does not matter whether she caught the ball or not. Just my judgment that she could have caught the pop up, and my judgment that the runner was far enough away from the base that she would not have made it back in time to tag up.

You are correct.
I'm wrong.
But, IMO it's a crappy written rule (the EFFECT portion) in it's current form. It's logic and rationale are not consistent with the ruling/interpretation presented in RS#33 D:
"If interference occurs by the runner on a foul fly ball not caught but, in the umpire's judgement could have with ordinary effort had the interference not occurred, the runner is out and the batter is also out."

Or, RS#33 D is not consistent with 8-7-J, take your pick.

I mean think about it, runner on base bangs into a fielder in the act of catching a routine pop-up, 1 OUT....BR to 1st. Runner on base does the same thing to a fielder in the act of fielding a foul ball with ordinary effort, both runner and batter are out...2 OUTS. How does that make common sense?

[AtlUmpSteve]

While it may not make (common) sense to all, I believe the rationale is that the runners generally are where they belong when they are in fair territory, while the play(s) that led to the foul fly rule were based on players going out to intentionally interfere in foul territory. The foul fly ruling was a change to address certain plays, and that rationale was not extended to all fly balls.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

While it may not make (common) sense to all, I believe the rationale is that the runners generally are where they belong when they are in fair territory, while the play(s) that led to the foul fly rule were based on players going out to intentionally interfere in foul territory. The foul fly ruling was a change to address certain plays, and that rationale was not extended to all fly balls.

Good point Steve. Explained that way, I can see the rationale of the penalty for runner interference on a foul fly ball.

Perhaps the solution to the difference in penalties is to have an Exception added to 8.7.J. that could (if warranted) allow the umpire to call both the R and BR out when this type of interference occurs in fair territory.

Stepping away from the play in the OP.
FP, less than 2 outs, R1 on 1B. R1 off on the release. Pop up to F4,
who's camped out underneath it halfway between 1B & 2B. R1 (with no intent to breakup a DP, just poor baserunning) bangs into F4. F4 fails to make the catch.
F4 was about to make a catch with "ordinary effort", doubling off R1 was going to be easy 2nd out.
If there were an Exception to 8.7.J that the umpire could apply, and call both R1 & BR out, it would seem to give the defense a fairer shake to the defense and be a bit more in line with the penalties for interference on a foul fly ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

While it may not make (common) sense to all, I believe the rationale is that the runners generally are where they belong when they are in fair territory, while the play(s) that led to the foul fly rule were based on players going out to intentionally interfere in foul territory. The foul fly ruling was a change to address certain plays, and that rationale was not extended to all fly balls.

It may also be that they believe that the BR would be the other player the INT kept the defense from being put out. Based on Steve's well-made point that the runners normally stay where they belong that any INT away from that area would be intentional.

Yes, all assumptions, but you never know.

[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?

[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.

[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.