Interference without contact

[WestMichBlue]

Girls FP, F6 is typically playing just off the basepath and we have a potential for conflict every time a runner is on 2B. Ground ball to F6, runner passes in front of F6, ball passes just in front of or just behind runner. Right now, do you have interference? Does it matter if the runner passes 1' or 3' or 6' in front of F6? Does it matter if F6 has to hesitate to get to fielding position, or if she is already there? Would you wait a second to see if F6 fielded the ball cleanly? Would you attempt to use your judgement as to whether or not F6 should have been able to field the ball? OR, to bring it full circle, is just passing in front of the fielder an act of interference?

[Andy]

To answer your last question first, just passing in front of a fielder is NOT interference.

This is why we umpires get the BIG BUCKS! Judgement!

The runner has the obligation to avoid interfering with the fielder making a play on a batted ball. Interference is what the umpire judges it to be.

My rule of thumb is the higher the level of ball, the more that needs to be done by the runner to constitute interference.

In a 10u game, running one foot in front of the fielder would probably be called, where as in an 18u game it probably would not be called.

This situation is a HTBT, but I generally look for the reaction of the fielder to the runner passing in front of him/her to determine interference or not.

[greymule]

This play happens a lot in girls' FP. I called interference once on a runner who stopped to avoid a squibbed "pool cue" type of grounder and then started again when the ball changed direction and came right at her. She then ran right in front of the fielder (no contact), so it looked bad, but I'll admit I blew it. Both her coaches knew the game well, and in a rather calm post-game discussion, I decided they were right. (I was relieved that her team won the 1-run game, too.)

I would not call interference unless I believed the runner intentionally tried to block fielder's vision. If she runs normally to the next base, she's OK unless there's contact.

In men's SP, it would have to be a blatant attempt to interfere. Just standing in front of the ball and then running as it approached, that's part of the game to me, although some umps will call that.

I've seen umps (wrongly) call interference simply because the fielder shied away from a runner who was doing nothing more than advancing. Unfortunately, the "baseball instinct" to go for the ball aggressively and let the runner hit you for obvious interference is just not there in many players, so we see a lot of troublesome plays.

[whiskers_ump]

WestMichBlue wrote:

"Girls FP, F6 is typically playing just off the basepath and we have a potential for conflict every time a runner is on 2B. Ground ball to F6, runner passes in front of F6, ball passes just in front of or just behind runner. Right now, do you have interference?"

Not to sound redundant of greymule or Andy's post, but....

Not unless the runner does something, contact, arm waving, shouting, etc.,
to cause F6 to err. Merely passing in front of or behind her would not
be interference.


glen

[WestMichBlue]

"I would not call interference unless I believed the runner intentionally tried to block fielder's vision. If she runs normally to the next base, she's OK unless there's contact."
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Why are you saying that "intent" is required for an interference call? I believe that "intent" is only considered for interference with a thrown ball, and attempt to prevent double play. Why is contact required? The only time "contact" is considered is when it is malicious.
=============================

"I've seen umps (wrongly) call interference simply because the fielder shied away from a runner who was doing nothing more than advancing"
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

So F6 moves into the basepath to field that ball and the runner, at the last second, twists away to avoid contact. No intent, no contact. But F6 flinches, to protect herself, and the ball scoots by. An ump is "wrong" to call that interference? FED book says that interference is an ACT that, among other things, "hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."

I would have to say that generally I am inclined to protect defensive players. Am I wrong in guessing that you tend to protect offensive players?

(Don't misjudge my intent here. Not trying to start a fight, just to keep the conversation going.) WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Girls FP, F6 is typically playing just off the basepath and we have a potential for conflict every time a runner is on 2B. Ground ball to F6, runner passes in front of F6, ball passes just in front of or just behind runner. Right now, do you have interference? Does it matter if the runner passes 1' or 3' or 6' in front of F6? Does it matter if F6 has to hesitate to get to fielding position, or if she is already there? Would you wait a second to see if F6 fielded the ball cleanly? Would you attempt to use your judgement as to whether or not F6 should have been able to field the ball? OR, to bring it full circle, is just passing in front of the fielder an act of interference?

Assuming the runner did nothing intentional to interfere.

That would depend on the fielder's reaction. Regardless of age or game, if, in my judgment the runner prevented the defender from moving to field the ball, I'm ruling interference. I'm not talking about a fielder who comes to a set position to field the ball, then kicks it because the runner passed in front of her. I'm talking about F6 moving toward the ball and, in my judgment, pulls up short to avoid contact with the runner and missing the ball. I also know that fielding or not fielding the ball is irrelevant to an interference call, but if the fielder gets the ball cleanly, obviously the runner did not cause any interference.

JMHO,

[greymule]

Of course, with contact, intent doesn't matter. But absent contact, a lot depends on how broadly or narrowly you interpet the wording. There are things that a runner could do that might hinder or confuse a fielder but that I might feel shouldn't have hindered or confused. Maybe I do give the benefit of the doubt more to the offense, because I interpret the rule more narrowly. An act that I felt was intended to hinder or confuse is easy to interpret as did hinder or confuse. With an unintentional act—simply running to the next base—I am more likely to ask, "Should that have hindered or confused the fielder?" If the answer is no, then I wouldn't call interference.

I'd have to see the play, but I admit that I'm more likely to expect the fielder to be aggressive. I don't have much sympathy for a fielder who, because a runner's coming, doesn't go after the ball.

[ronald]

Greymule,.

Can you explain where the "should or should not hinder or confuse" thinking comes from>? Is it your personal thinking or did you get it at a clinic. I do not think that is a proper reading of the rule IMHO. If it hinders or confuses then we should not apply a should it have or not in order to make a decision.

[greymule]

It's my personal thinking. In my opinion, applying the literal wording would be interpreting the rule too broadly, so that's my criterion. A shortstop might be confused because a runner advancing to 3B on a force committed the act of turning around and retreating to 2B for no good reason. A first baseman might shy away from a pop fly—be hindered from fielding it—because she heard the batter-runner's footsteps 10 feet away.

There are other rules for which a literal reading simply cannot be applied in all cases. How about "when anyone other than another runner physically assists a runner"? Anyone? The second baseman?

[WestMichBlue]

I think that you are starting down a slippery slope when you interpret "intent" in a player's mind. Gonna be allful hard to sell that to a coach.

It is my opinion that Interference rules are designed to protect a defensive player; to allow them every opportunity to make a play. The wording of Interference rules are very clear that "Interference is Interference," whether intentional or not. (Except, of course, when interfering with a thrown ball or attempting to defeat a double play opportunity.)

Last year a FED Point of Emphasis was calling interference of the batter-runner if outside the 3' lane when a play was being made down the basepath. If the runner is outside the lane, and the catcher throws the ball into RF, you don't question Intent. She is out - period. She is in an area that belongs to the fielder. Conversely, if she is in the 3' lane (her authorized property), then the fielder is required to move and find a throwning lane outside the runner.

Same thing with a batter bailing out of the batter's box and the catcher throws the ball over her head into LF trying to retire a runner at third. No question about intent, contact not required. She doesn't belong there; that is the catcher's protected part of the field for her to make a play.

Now - how 'bout the space in front of an infielder trying to make a play?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
I think that you are starting down a slippery slope when you interpret "intent" in a player's mind. Gonna be allful hard to sell that to a coach.

It is my opinion that Interference rules are designed to protect a defensive player; to allow them every opportunity to make a play. The wording of Interference rules are very clear that "Interference is Interference," whether intentional or not. (Except, of course, when interfering with a thrown ball or attempting to defeat a double play opportunity.)

Last year a FED Point of Emphasis was calling interference of the batter-runner if outside the 3' lane when a play was being made down the basepath. If the runner is outside the lane, and the catcher throws the ball into RF, you don't question Intent. She is out - period. She is in an area that belongs to the fielder. Conversely, if she is in the 3' lane (her authorized property), then the fielder is required to move and find a throwning lane outside the runner.

Same thing with a batter bailing out of the batter's box and the catcher throws the ball over her head into LF trying to retire a runner at third. No question about intent, contact not required. She doesn't belong there; that is the catcher's protected part of the field for her to make a play.

Now - how 'bout the space in front of an infielder trying to make a play?

Speaking of slippery slopes....those are awfully broad interpretations.

The fact that a runner is out of the 3' lane or the batter being out of the box when a throw goes into the outfield is irrelevant. The only thing which is relevant to is whether the umpire believes the offensive player's presence facilitated an errant throw. After all, some players just out right suck and couldn't possibly have made a good throw regardless of where the runner is located.

The defense only owns the parts of the field necessary to make a play on the offense.

As a catcher, sp & fp, anytime the opportunity was possible, I would always tell the umpire that my throw is going right down the inside of the base line and that I expect the call if the runner is there. If that ball went into right field, I didn't expect anything from the umpire 'cause I'm the one who kicked the play, not the runner.

This is why interference is a judgment call. The umpire must have the authority to evaluate the play, then make the call. We all pray that the umpire follows the rules and more often than not, that is the case.

[greymule]

That play where the BR is running outside the lane—now that's one where I'd be more likely to make a literal interpretation. Don't have the Fed wording here but ASA says "interferes with the fielder taking the throw." To me, that means throw the ball to first as you would normally, and if the runner interferes, she's out. But the catcher should not try to throw around the runner. If she does and makes a wild throw, that's too bad. I also think the catcher (or whoever) has to make a "quality throw." From halfway to the mound, a throw that hits the runner in the ankle 10 feet in front of the bag is not a quality throw.

Had this play a few years ago:

Batter bunts in front of the plate. F2 fields the ball, starts to throw to F3, but stops and says, "She was running on the fair side of the line! I couldn't make a throw without hitting her." But before the runner can interfere with the fielder taking the throw, there has to be a throw.

[Edited by greymule on Jan 8th, 2003 at 12:34 PM]

[SamNVa]

WestMichBlue,

I think you may be mis-remembering the FED POE on the 3-foot lane. The POE simply said that the BR had to use the lane on a walk as well as a batted ball. It did nothing to redefine or define the means by which a BR may interfere. In fact, the POE uses the same wording, "When the BR runs outside the 3 foot lane and, in the judgement of the umpire, interferes with the fielder receiving the throw at 1st base, interference shall be called."

As far as a runner on 2nd interfering with F6 on a batted ball, my method of ruling is this: If the runner simply runs from 2nd to 3rd and cleanly passes in front of F6, then I would not rule interference even if F6 muffs the ball. By "cleanly passing" I mean that F6 did not alter her path to the ball due to the presence of the runner.

SamC

[ronald]

Greymule,

I have better idea now where you are going with your concept but am still completely sold on it. I'm burned out from 4 games of bb tonight and the brain is dead. Seems to make sense in the situations in which you cite and I would say the rules writer's certainly did not want us to call interference cause someone is running too loudly. The example you give would be way to broad of an interpretation of the any act that ... The writers did not want us to do that.

Has anyone ever called verbal interfence? I had a 1st base coach who flirted with getting it a couple times. He would yell for the player to throw the ball to the wrong base. a couple of times the players almost did. If the player had thrown the ball, he would have gotton it. He cocked to throw but did not. Oh, I was hoping he would because I wanted to call it on him sooooo bad.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by ronald


Has anyone ever called verbal interfence? I had a 1st base coach who flirted with getting it a couple times. He would yell for the player to throw the ball to the wrong base. a couple of times the players almost did. If the player had thrown the ball, he would have gotton it. He cocked to throw but did not. Oh, I was hoping he would because I wanted to call it on him sooooo bad.

Yes, I have. However, you need to be very careful making such a call especially on a coach. You want to make sure whatever the coach is yelling, it cannot be contrued that it was direction for any runner.