This isn't so much a rule question as an application of the rule question.

Situation: R1 on 2nd. F6 playing a bit deep, behind the base line. Batter hits an infield grounder up the middle. F6 is charging on the ball, R1 is advancing to 3rd. R1 runs in front of F6 and behind the ball. No contact is made.

What do you look for before calling interference?

If everything was in very close quarters, is that enough for interference? Who gets the benefit of the doubt?

In discussing non-contact interference during my "down time" in a tournament this weekend, I found that the majority opinion was that F6 would have to show obvious signs of being impeded (slow down, stutter step, deviate in some way) to get the call.

What do you look for in this situation?

I agree with the majority that you spoke to at your touney.
I've got to see some obvious sign that the runner is trying to impede the fielder's play on the ball. Just running by (close) in advancing to the next base, is not gonna get the interfence call out of me.

Ditto with a caveat. If the runner hesitated, and in my judgment (God, I love those words) did so for the express purpose of timing the passing with the ball approaching the fielder, I'm going to give every benefit of doubt to the fielder.

Concur. And when I will call INT depends on what level I am working. 10U, you're going to basically have to smack into the fielder to merit an interference call, and the same goes for obstruction. For a lot of the girls in my league it's a miracle they were paying attention to the base coach enough to start running - and this is true even in travel at times.

At an older level, if there's a sign of being impeded. Does the fielder, in your opinion, have a more difficult play to make because of an action taken (or not taken) by the runner? If yes, interference. If no, nothing.

By the way, does someone have the base awards for a situation like this handy? I am in France and don't have my FED book with me. Thanks in advance.

Caveat???? Darn English!! :)

I'm in my third year of umpiring, and this is one call I have yet to make. Anytime it has been called, my partner has called it before I had a chance to ( my fault, too slow to see it and call it). So I'm still a little unsure of what I will call interference and what I won't, but I tend to agree that the fielder would have to look like they were interfered with in some way. I'm hoping after I make the call a couple of times I will be more sure of what I will call interference and what I won't.
I believe base awards would be "dead ball", all runners remain at base last legally reached safely at the time of the "dead ball" call. And of course, the runner that interfered is OUT!

I agree with the majority of the respondents to this thread.

I tend to lean the opposite way. Interference would have a much broader definition at 10u than at 18u. My feeling is at the younger ages, it would not take as much to distract or hinder the fielder. The older players, in my opinion, should be able to make the play through more "distraction".

This is only a guideline that I use, not a hard and fast interpretation. I also use Mike's guidelines of the actions of the runners.

un, deux, trois :D