HS Interference Play

[Andy]

Yes, I know that most interference plays are a HTBT situation, but I'm going to post this one anyway to see what kind of response I get.

HS V game..I'm BU....R1 on second, 1 out.

Batter hits a ground ball toward F6, F6 starts to come in to play the ball, but stops to avoid a collision with R1 running in front of her. F6 steps around R1, fields the ball and throws to first in time to retire the B/R. I did not see any contact between R1 and F6, although they were very close to each other.

I killed the play and called the interference. At first, I wasn't going to, but then I thought that if that slight hesitation by F6 caused her to misplay the ball, or rush her throw, then the offense would benefit. I also couldn't see waiting to see the outcome of the play to first before calling or not calling the interference.

I'd like to hear what anybody else has to say...call it or not?

[AtlUmpSteve]

My opinion; at all but NCAA rules, that should be judged interference. For NCAA, there must be physical contact.

The key to your judgment, IMO, is that you determined the reason F6 hesitated, then went around, was to avoid a collision. That is "hindered" or "impeded" when she has the right of way to get the ball. If F6 routinely played back, let the ball play her, then R1 can advance in front; but she still does so at the possible risk of committing interference.

What is clear to me in many of these similar plays is that R1 is attempting to hinder in anyway possible short of contact, believing that no contact means no interference. Simply not true. It isn't necessary (nor appropriate) to require a collision in a sport where collisions are to be avoided.

[outathm]

Steve:

I would check the rule again, physical contact is not a requirement.

[RKBUmp]

NCAA rules say basically the same thing, "denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball"

[Andy]

Although the wording in NCAA rules is basically the same, the common interpretation and teaching at that level is that there should be contact prior to an interference call.

I will say that had this been a college game, I would not have called interference on this play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

Yes, I know that most interference plays are a HTBT situation, but I'm going to post this one anyway to see what kind of response I get.

HS V game..I'm BU....R1 on second, 1 out.

Batter hits a ground ball toward F6, F6 starts to come in to play the ball, but stops to avoid a collision with R1 running in front of her. F6 steps around R1, fields the ball and throws to first in time to retire the B/R. I did not see any contact between R1 and F6, although they were very close to each other.

I killed the play and called the interference. At first, I wasn't going to, but then I thought that if that slight hesitation by F6 caused her to misplay the ball, or rush her throw, then the offense would benefit. I also couldn't see waiting to see the outcome of the play to first before calling or not calling the interference.

I'd like to hear what anybody else has to say...call it or not?

On the HTBT side, there is a lot more to making a call like this than a fielder hesitating. I think this is one of the few sides of forcing the umpire to judge INT instead of making mandates. Sometimes players just don't react they same.

Some fielders make a conscientious decision to take a path to the ball that alleviates possible interference. She may have looked like she was hindered because of the path taken, but that doesn't mean it was INT.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by outathm

Steve:

I would check the rule again, physical contact is not a requirement.

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

NCAA rules say basically the same thing, "denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball"

NCAA 12.19.1 The base runner may not interfere with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. For example:

NCAA 12.19.1.4 Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so.

Which NCAA rule are you citing which defines interference by a base runner without physical contact? Not the general definition (1.72); this specific rule will be and has been cited as requiring physical contact, and I can find no other rule that says (as ASA and NFHS do) that contact is NOT required.

And have been instructed that is the way the NCAA intends the rule to be interpreted, absent some specific act like waving arms or verbal interference (12.19.1.4.2.

[RKBUmp]

I understand that is the stance NCAA is taking that physical contact is required in order to be interference, and if that is the how they want it called, that is fine. However, I do not see where in the rules that is supported.

Yes, I was quoting the general definition of interference in 1.72, but the same wording is used in 12.19. As for 12.19.1.4 it says physical contact "shall" be considered interference, not that it is required. Again, I fully understand NCAA umpires are being instructed to require the physical contact for it to be called. But, if that is the case, then the rule book needs to be reworded to indicate so.

[SE Minnestoa Re]

I work NCAA and had contact on a play last week and the offensive coach still didn't like the call. He said he didn't think the SS would get to the ball. I was certain she would have fielded it. My judgment. We're done.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by Andy

Batter hits a ground ball toward F6, F6 starts to come in to play the ball, but stops to avoid a collision with R1 running in front of her. F6 steps around R1, fields the ball and throws to first in time to retire the B/R. I did not see any contact between R1 and F6, although they were very close to each other.

Devil's advocate:

How do you know that is why she stopped? Is it possible that she stopped because that is where she wanted to play the ball?

No contact, cleanly fielded the ball, threw the BR out at 1B. In what way was she interferred?

I don't see any problem with delaying the call slightly to see what happens, especially in a 50/50 play like you had.

I would not have had any issues with you letting it go.

[IRISHMAFIA]

12.19.1.4.2 Merely running in front of the fielder or jumping over the ball
while proceeding to the next base is not interference, even though it
may be distracting to the fielder or screen her view of the ball. The
base runner may not at any time unnecessarily wave her arms or

verbally distract the fielder.

For obvious reasons, I wouldn't play well in college ball.

I understand what the coaches prefer, but the rules do not require physical contact for INT. They do clearly note that contact is an example of runner interference, but as you can see in a subsequent example, it is not required.

[Tru_in_Blu]

For NFHS:

ART. 1 . . .Interference is an act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder; or when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline.

Does NFHS have any specific wording such as contact is not required [specifically], or are we left to interpret the impedes, hinders, or confuses part of this rule?

Thanx.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

For NFHS:

ART. 1 . . .Interference is an act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder; or when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline.

Does NFHS have any specific wording such as contact is not required [specifically], or are we left to interpret the impedes, hinders, or confuses part of this rule?

Thanx.

Verbal interference would have to be pretty loud to be considered contact!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

I'd like to hear what anybody else has to say...call it or not?

Sounds textbook - call it! Glad you did.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

How do you know that is why she stopped?

Stops to avoid a collision. Who cares about why ... if she would not have stopped, would she have collided? If so, then she stopped to avoid a collision.

TO doesn't have to mean, "because she wanted to..."
TO can mean "in order to"