Interference with F3 on Fly Ball
 

Juco game (yes, IM, it happened to me again :o). Runners at first and third, one out. Batter hits a popup to F3 who is standing a couple of feet from the first base bag in fair territory, directly in line with first and second.

R2, who took a leadoff on the pitch, is sauntering back to the bag so that she doesn't get doubled up after the catch. She clearly bumps into F3 while the ball is still in the air, but not enough to phase F3, who is able to easily catch the popup just as R2 gets back on the bag.

I was doing bases, so I saw the bump from behind the shortstop. My partner and I didn't call anything. Between innings, I asked him if he saw the bump, and he confessed that he was watching the flight of the ball.

Reading 12.19.1.4 and the Note that follows the first paragraph, I'm not sure if this was interference or just inadvertent contact. If R2 had stopped or tried to get around F3, she could have been at risk of being tagged off the bag after the catch.

But, assuming one of us had killed it the moment of the bump, and ruled R2 had interfered, would the appropriate ruling have been R2 out and the BR placed on first base? Or would we also rule the BR out based upon what is written in the second exception at the end of 12.19.1.4?

2 outs.

Don't understand why that would be a concern. It certainly isn't in any of the rule books I've seen. Anytime the offense leaves the base, they are placing themselves in jeopardy.

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

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

Any though on whether the bump actually hindered the fielder?

That's U's call, so I didn't really want to disagree with Manny's judgement on that. But I will add this, since you ask... my threshold for whether this is INT or not is going to be VERY low... and also, you need to make that determination at the moment of contact, and not wait to see if it actually affects the fielder. If it IS interference, it's dead at that instant, and the catch/no-catch never happens. If it's not, and you don't call it, and then she drops it, you can't (or well... shouldn't) retroactively change your mind.

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.

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

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.

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

Not in NCAA.

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.

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

Maybe you want to view this:
This is an interpretation posted on the Arbiter. The bold in my emphasis.

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

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

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.

No, it isn't. The amount of runners on is not an issue. The case play happened to have IFF in effect, but same effect if R1 was the only runner.

Case plays on arbiter, from the NCAA rules editor, constantly use the phase that I highlighted: "interference is an immediate dead ball." It is even part of the rule:
Fielders cannot make a play once interference is called: they are "prevented" from catching a fly ball; they are "prevented" from throwing a ball to another fielder; they are "prevented" from catching a ground ball. They are "prevented" from any other action because -- the ball is dead.

Please, please please have your clinicians send me their materials and/or videos. Because they are wrong. All of the clinics that I have attended (which include ones being hosted and presented by the SUP) have never made this distinction.

Think what you wish, BS. I would ask you what the purpose of the rule I quoted might mean if the one you quoted is the only rule we should look at here.

But I don't have the energy right now for a semantic argument when I know what I've seen on about 10 different occasions. Call what you want... I hope your bosses like what you call.

I obviously do not have all the publications, but I read this as saying there actually has to be a play available to the defender for INT to apply. IOW, the defender had a play, not just running toward a ball with absolutely no possibility of getting anyone out even if the INT was not evident.

provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was
prevented from doing so.

I agree that what you said and "provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play" are equivalent. But if that is what the rulesmaker's intent was they would not have added, "and was prevented from doing so".

A little clearer.

I used to play with a SS that dove for anything. I mean anything! 20' away when he hit the ground, but he dove for the ball. He was attempting to make a play, but he had no shot at doing so. If a runner was going from 2B to 3B and this guy dove for a ball up the middle that there was no chance to make a play and flew into that runner, I'm not calling INT.

To me, that is how that rule reads. Granted, it may not be well written, but that is how this hi skuel gratiate reads it.

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)

On a foul ball like that, I'm not making any immediate call of interference on the coach. I'm going to wait until I see if the ball was catchable. But I will definitely give the fielder the maximum benefit of the doubt after I see where the ball ended up.