Interference
 

I came across this passage in another string and wanted to get some more information on it:

Had a partner early this season.. had a few year experience elsewhere but been out of the game for a couple of years. His mechanics and game management were pretty good but he had to come to me after calling and INT on runner from 3B who bumped F5 going for a foul fly ball coming down by the 3B coaches box. He was correct in calling it INT but could not remember what we did with the batter in that instance.

It was a HS game so the batter gets a foul ball and remains at bat, R on 3B is out.

Heard of a similar situation at an ASA tournament last year which generated a lot of discussion among umpires. In the ASA game, we actually get 2 outs on this play, the runner who interfered and the batter.

My question is about the timing of the interference. Typically, it's called at the point it occurs. With a runner on 3rd who releases on the pitch and comes down the line, F5 is playing in. The batter hits a foul ball near the 3rd base fence. As the runner is coming down the line and F5 turns to make a play on the ball, both players collide. So usually, we have the INT call.

If the ball falls in an area where F5 could have caught it without the interference, it looks justified. What if the ball hits on top of the fence. This would require an exceptional play on F5's part. What if the ball lands 20 feet outside the fence and no way could F5 have made a play on it.

When do you make the INT call? Do you delay a bit to see where the ball might end up?

Thanx.

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.

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.

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.

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?

The protest for what?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

what would the proper mechanic be after calling interference seeing the ball drop on the other side of the fence with no possibility of a catch. one of those high pop ups that may or may not land on the opposite side of the fence but evenyually does?

So much of the stuff we note on paper/computer screen can be read and processed damn near instantaneously. However, real world umpiring doesn't happen that way. You see a play, your eyes tell your mind what you saw, the brain processes the image and instructs your mouth and other muscles how to act. It may seem like it happens as quickly, but it really doesn't.

We talk about plays like you are seeing, thinking, calling and signaling them all at the same time. Not only does it not happen instantaneously, but when it seems that it is that quick, it is quite possible the umpire anticipated the call. Don't know how many times I've heard or said in a clinic or school that an umpire doesn't get extra points for speed. Common advice to rookie umpires is to slow down. We teach them to anticipate plays, but never anticipate the call.

On the foul ball, you are just killing the play. I would think by the time you lowered your arms, you would have a pretty good idea of whether the fielder would have had the opportunity to make a play on it.

And remember (and before someone brings it up) if another player has the opportunity to make the play, it isn't INT on the player who was hindered, so then you don't kill the ball.