Interference - Is intent Required?
 

Nobody out, runner on 2nd. R1 has left 2nd base on an infield pop up. In the process of running back to the bag to tag up, she interferes with the defensive player (F4) attempting to catch the ball. R1's foot is in contact with the base when the contact occurs. There was no apparent intent, R1's momentum simply carried her a little past the bag making contact with F4 who was waiting to catch the ball. (FYI, the interference consisted of R1 contacting F4's face with R1's facemask, cutting F4 below the eye).

If a runner is on base and interferes with a defensive player, is she automatically out or is intent required?

What is the call?
1 - No call, contact was incidental, both runner and batter are safe.
2 - R1 is out for interference. Batter is safe at first.
3 - R1 is out for interference and batter is out as R1 could have avoided contact by sliding or diving back to the bag.

Thank you for your input.

Ruleset?

ASA - Minor Girls Fastpitch

Missing piece of info....did F4 end up catching the pop up?

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.

I have an out for interference. BR gets 1st base. R2's momentum coming back to 2nd base carried her into F4. If R2 would have stayed at 2nd base without interfering with the catch, I would have nothing, play on.

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.

R2 is out for interference. The rule stipulates that the runner need not abandon a base to allow for a fielder to play a batted ball. In this case, the runner's actions initiated the contact in an area on the opposite side of the base from where the runner was.

F4 was set up to catch the ball. Runners face mask jammed into her face causing her to miss the ball. There was a considerable size difference between the runner (very big) and fielder - tiny.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Not really a hijack
 

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.

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?

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.

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. :rolleyes: :D

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?

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

I'm not saying anything even remotely like that. We're talking about a play here that involved a fly ball, not a grounder.

Then your humble opinion is in direct conflict with what is printed in the ASA rule book.

I'm sorry, yes, the exception applies. Let me get my head out of my... you know...