Interference with F3 on Fly Ball

[Manny A]

Juco game (yes, IM, it happened to me again ). 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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Juco game (yes, IM, it happened to me again ). 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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Juco game (yes, IM, it happened to me again ). 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.

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.

[EsqUmp]

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...

[CecilOne]

Any though on whether the bump actually hindered the fielder?

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[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.

[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?