Interference with F3 on Fly Ball

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Interference on a fly ball. The runner is out and the batter is out.

Great. But for argument's sake, what rule cite would you use to back this up?

I mentioned in my OP the second Exception at the end of the rule that states, "If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, the batter is also out." Well, the bump did not prevent F3 from making the catch. She was able to catch it easily. That's why I was leaning towards this being inadvertent contact.

If the Exception was written to read, "If the interference occurs when the fielder is attempting to catch a routine fly ball, the batter is also out", that would be much clearer on how to rule in this instance.

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I assume by R2 you really mean R1 since we are applying NCAA rules. When in Rome...

So much for consistency, even within softball circles. I thought that problem only existed in baseball...

[MD Longhorn]

Argh! My mistake entirely - was ruling ASA. You're right in NCAA rules that it's only interference if they prevent the fielder from making the catch. I retract all the nonsense I spouted previously. Sorry.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I mentioned in my OP the second Exception at the end of the rule that states, "If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, the batter is also out." Well, the bump did not prevent F3 from making the catch. She was able to catch it easily. That's why I was leaning towards this being inadvertent contact.

At the moment of the "bump," you have interference. At the time of interference, you have a dead ball. At the moment of any dead ball, nothing else can happen, including catching a fly ball. Therefore, the fielder is prevented from catching a fly ball, and thus you have two outs. It is of no consequence if the ball happens to land in the fielders glove after you call interference: MD is correct when he says:

If it IS interference, it's dead at that instant, and the catch/no-catch never happens.

I believe this same conversation happened last year due to a very similar play in a super regional.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

At the moment of the "bump," you have interference. At the time of interference, you have a dead ball.

Not in NCAA.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not in NCAA.

How do you figure? If you call interference, nothing else can happen.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

How do you figure? If you call interference, nothing else can happen.

In NCAA rules, you're not supposed to call it the second it happens on a fly ball... like you would in any other code. You're supposed to see if it ACTUALLY interferes with a catch rather than potentially... in other words, the umpire is required to wait to see if the potential interference prevented the catch before making a ruling of interference.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

In NCAA rules, you're not supposed to call it the second it happens on a fly ball... like you would in any other code. You're supposed to see if it ACTUALLY interferes with a catch rather than potentially... in other words, the umpire is required to wait to see if the potential interference prevented the catch before making a ruling of interference.

Where are you getting this from? Interference is interference in all codes. There is no "wait and see."

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

In NCAA rules, you're not supposed to call it the second it happens on a fly ball... like you would in any other code. You're supposed to see if it ACTUALLY interferes with a catch rather than potentially... in other words, the umpire is required to wait to see if the potential interference prevented the catch before making a ruling of interference.

Maybe you want to view this:

A.R.12.19.1.4^1:
With the bases loaded and no one out, the batter hits a declared infield fly
right in the baseline between first and second bases. The base runner, on her return to first base following her lead-off, runs into the first baseman attempting to field the fly ball.
1) The base runner from third base tags and advances home; 2) the base runners on second and third bases do not attempt to advance. In either
case, is this interference even though the base runner contacts the fielder who is already credited with the put out and is not making an additional play?
RULING:
In both cases, the batter is out on the infield fly and the ball is immediately dead when the base runner interferes with the first baseman making the catch. The base runner from first base is out on interference and the other base runners must return to the bases held at the time of the interference.

This is an interpretation posted on the Arbiter. The bold in my emphasis.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Maybe you want to view this:


This is an interpretation posted on the Arbiter. The bold in my emphasis.

Absolutely - IFF is called out as a specific separate case.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

In NCAA rules, you're not supposed to call it the second it happens on a fly ball... like you would in any other code. You're supposed to see if it ACTUALLY interferes with a catch rather than potentially... in other words, the umpire is required to wait to see if the potential interference prevented the catch before making a ruling of interference.

So, you are saying a DDB is situational in NCAA's rules concerning INT?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So, you are saying a DDB is situational in NCAA's rules concerning INT?

I wish they would use that term (DDB) - it would be more clear. However, I'm saying this based on videos from the clinics.

Unfortunately, the rule only implies it, and doesn't state it outright. Here's one place:

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

The "and was prevented from doing so" certainly implies that we must wait to see if they are actually prevented.

Also under effect:

If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine
fly ball, the batter is also out

Again, the wording of "prevents the fielder from catching". It's not as clear as anyone would like - but with the clarifications at clinics, it's is clear what they want here.

[jmkupka]

similar sit this weekend, where F3 runs hard into the 1B coach while chasing a fly ball which just crosses the fence out of play (high fence; no chance of reaching over to make the catch).

If I call INT at the time of collision, I clearly have to reverse my call, no?


(sorry, didn't realize this was a 5-year old thread)