Interference

[Manny A]

You cannot delay an interference call to see what happens afterward. When it happens, you call it. The only exception is on umpire interference by the plate umpire with the catcher's throw to retire a runner.

When it happens on a foul fly, you have to judge at the moment the interference occurs that the fielder could have made the catch with ordinary effort had there been no interference.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Manny A

You cannot delay an interference call to see what happens afterward. When it happens, you call it. The only exception is on umpire interference by the plate umpire with the catcher's throw to retire a runner.

When it happens on a foul fly, you have to judge at the moment the interference occurs that the fielder could have made the catch with ordinary effort had there been no interference.

In an ideal world, yes, but if it's me and I see a runner interfere with F5 on a pop foul fly, I'm going to delay the call while I check out where the ball is headed.

[MD Longhorn]

The interference happens when it happens... but an immediate call is not necessarily critical in this particular play. If you know it's catchable when the INT happens, call it. But on those plays where the ball is possibly going to end up near fence, there's nothing wrong with waiting a hair before announcing the call. After all, you can't really rule interference with a catch if there's no catch to be had.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

In an ideal world, yes, but if it's me and I see a runner interfere with F5 on a pop foul fly, I'm going to delay the call while I check out where the ball is headed.

Then you are going to lose the protest.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Then you are going to lose the protest.

Out of curiosity, how would you word the protest.

It's a matter of timing, isn't it?
I have to have all the information.
Is there a play possible?
Is it F5's play?

In case I mis worded what I wrote, I'm not saying I would treat it as a DDB, I'm only saying I wouldn't rule the interference just because I saw the collision.

But again, what exactly would be protested?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Then you are going to lose the protest.

The protest for what?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The protest for what?

In FED, the protest would be on the misapplication of rule 5-1-1m.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

In FED, the protest would be on the misapplication of rule 5-1-1m.

Not following.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not following.

Rule 5-1-1m says it's an immediate dead ball when a runner hinders a fielder trying to catch a foul fly. Immediate means, well, immediate.

When a runner runs into a protected fielder trying to field a fair fly ball, we don't hesitate slightly to make sure the fielder could have made that catch. Why should a foul ball be any different?

Don't get me wrong. I would prefer to hesitate. But that hesitation equates to a delayed dead ball, and the rule doesn't call for that here.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The protest for what?

If it is INT, it is a dead ball. If you didn't rule the ball dead at the time of the INT, how can you possibly have INT without admitting you were inappropriately delaying the call hence a misapplication.

ASA is consistent with their rules as it pertains to any INT call on any team personnel, the ball is dead, period. Not applying that effect to the call, IMO, is a misapplication or misinterpretation of the rule, not a judgment call.

[UmpireErnie]

Sure but to have INT there has to be an opportunity for an out that the defense has been deprived of, right?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

Sure but to have INT there has to be an opportunity for an out that the defense has been deprived of, right?

Speaking ASA, no. Just the opportunity to execute a play.

Now a play is an attempt by the defense to retire an offensive player. THAT would require the possibility of an out, but any benefit of doubt must go to the defense's ability.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by Manny A

You cannot delay an interference call to see what happens afterward. When it happens, you call it. The only exception is on umpire interference by the plate umpire with the catcher's throw to retire a runner.

When it happens on a foul fly, you have to judge at the moment the interference occurs that the fielder could have made the catch with ordinary effort had there been no interference.

I originally posted the play mentioned in the OP. Working as BU in 2man system. While I agree you don't delay this call like a delayed dead ball, I am going to hesitate long enough to make sure there is a possibility of an out. I saw the contact then looked for the ball to decide if it was going to come down in the field of play. My partner at PU was of course tracking the ball from a better angle to see where it was coming down and made the decision a beat ahead of me.