Interference

[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.

[Robmoz]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

Hmm, seems like hesitation would be required if the foul fly ball was at or approaching DBT... which, if it was DBT, then no longer a foul ball, which would negate any interference, no ?

...unlike a fair ball situation which immediacy is more apparent.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

The action occurs when it occurs. And if it was interference, then the ball was dead at that moment. Whether I say it or signal itimmediately or not.

If I can't tell whether the ball is playable or not, then I don't know if that runner interfered with the fielder's ability to catch it.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

Big difference between delayed dead ball and a hesitation. DDB means waiting for all playing action to end or at least until something requiring an immediate dead ball. We are talking about waiting long enough for the umpire to take in all the information before rendering a decision.

This is the same type of timing that you have to use when calling a catch/no catch of a fly ball or a force out at a base.. call it too fast and you have your arm in the air signalling OUT when the ball is on the ground.

This hesitation is usually barely noticeable but can be longer on some plays..how about where fielder makes tag with ball in glove on player sliding into her. I may wait longer to make sure fielder still has ball in her glove..

As to a fair fly ball I would submit that yes you still have to have a catchable ball to rule INT. If a runner runs into say an infielder who is running toward to outfield on a fly ball she will never ever reach it is not INT it is OBS.

No way should we end up with INT on a foul fly ball that lands out of play and could never have been an out.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Our first call is "DEAD BALL"; the second call can be a repeat of that one or two seconds later, officially for emphasis, unofficially to finish replaying in our head what we are about to rule. Unless we are talking major league pop up, this should be more than enough time to see 1) if the person interfered with is the person we are protecting as the most probable to have made the play, and 2) if the ball is/was catchable by that person. Remember, many foul flies are more easily caught by F4 over F3, and F6 over F5, and we aren't protecting the wrong one.

Even if you blew out the word "Interference" too early, if the ball lands in DBT (like on the other side of the fence!!), then this obviously misapplied RULE is correctable. Consider it something like calling an infield fly that then rolls foul, untouched, and you didn't also yell out "if fair". The judgment, though, really cannot be changed, so buy yourself the necessary time even while declaring the dead ball immediately.

[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 IRISHMAFIA

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.

OK..I think we agree but you are using a lot more words. So a fielder running toward foul ground who is hindered by a runner is not "making a play" if she is running after a foul fly ball that is going to land in DBT. Ditto for a fly ball to the outfield that an infielder is running after but will never reach hindered or not.

But if there is any possibility of the hindered defensive player making a play then INT. Sure.

So there is a judgement to be made by the umpire. Is there a possibility of an out or not?

All I am saying is it could take a beat or two after the runner hinders the fielder before I can decide if there was the possibility of an out when a runner hinders a fielder who may be attempting to catch a fair batted ball.

As soon as I have that it is a dead ball. Not DDB. Any I would submit that my small (probably not even noticed) pause is not a misinterp of the rules which could be protested.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

All I am saying is it could take a beat or two after the runner hinders the fielder before I can decide if there was the possibility of an out when a runner hinders a fielder who may be attempting to catch a fair batted ball.

As soon as I have that it is a dead ball. Not DDB. Any I would submit that my small (probably not even noticed) pause is not a misinterp of the rules which could be protested.

Maybe I should put it this way, and we probably do agree. I'm not suggesting that the call be made immediately upon seeing some action which may be INT, but when you do see something that could be INT, you do need to find the ball and make a decision then. IOW, if it was INT, you are not waiting to see what unfolds in front of you before deciding to call or apply the penalty.