Am I missing something?

[TruBlu]

During a high school game (federation rules) - R1 on second base, batter hits a ground ball to shortstop. R1, ball, shortstop all converge, R1 leaps over ball in front of shortstop (in order to avoid behing hit by the batted ball) never breaking stride, absolutely no contact between the 3, but shortstop misses the ball, runners safe at first and third. To my surprise, coach of the defensive team can't believe I didn't call interference on R1. I say "how did she interfere?" to which he replied "she blocked her vision of the play".

People afterward told me they had seen this called before. Granted it was in another state, but am I missing something?

[Steve M]

High school players, no contact, no break of stride - nope, I don't think you're missing anything. Sounds like nothing to me.

Steve M

[Skahtboi]

I don't know...if she seriously could not see the ball because of the action of the runner, interference might would be an option. Certainly a HTBT kind of play, but the possibility is open to interference.

[Roger Greene]

If the discription is accurate, I'm with Steve. No interference.
Roger Greene

[TexBlue]

Naw, you aren't missing anything. I know several umpires that call that interference. I highly disagree. I call it smart ball. We have talked about it everytime it's called, and, by the results so far, will continue to discuss it. Neither side gives an inch on this discussion. It's just a matter of what the blue sees and wants.

Rick

[mo99]

No contact,no breaking of stride,no verbal interference?? I have nothing here guys.Play on.

Jeff

[Dakota]

What's the matter with you guys, don't you ever actually read the rule books you are given? Just kidding!

I think the basis for the disagreement on this call is a difference in the rules between ASA (and several others) and NFHS, and a difference in how the interference rules are applied at the upper JO ages v the younger.

NFHS defines interference as being physical or verbal.

ASA includes visual distraction in POE 32.

Whether a high school player should be distracted by a runner crossing between her and the ball is another matter.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Skahtboi
I don't know...if she seriously could not see the ball because of the action of the runner, interference might would be an option. Certainly a HTBT kind of play, but the possibility is open to interference.

I disagree. If this play happened as described, there isn't even a remote possibility of interference. The runner did what she is supposed to do, run to the next base while avoiding being hit by a fair batted ball.

Is there a rule forbidding a runner from passing between the ball and the fielder? No.

Did the runner act in any manner contrary to how she is supposed to act? No.

Do you expect runners to just stand there waiting on the ball to pass prior to advancing to the next base? No.

If a defender is playing deep and waiting on a batted ball, do we expect the runner to take a 20' detour to run behind the fielder? No.

If the defense wants an unobstructed view of the ball, tell them to move up or charge the ball. If not, they are ceding the territory in front of them to the offense.

But then again, we are talking about the organization which wants umpires to rule on a 3' lane violation on a walk.

[TruBlu]

Thanks for all the backup. You have especially put my argument into words, Mike. I would like to have asked the same questions to the coach. I felt good about my call and better now.

[greymule]

On the play in question, no interference. If we go by what we have seen other umpires call, then practically anything goes. I've seen umps call a runner out because the fielder might have become distracted by hearing the runner's footsteps.

However:

"We are talking about the organization which wants umpires to rule on a 3' lane violation on a walk."

Wasn't aware of that. Exactly what are they saying?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule


"We are talking about the organization which wants umpires to rule on a 3' lane violation on a walk."

Wasn't aware of that. Exactly what are they saying?

As of two years ago, NFHS provided an interpretation on the 3' lane violation that would rule a walked BR out if they were contacted with a thrown ball to 1B while not within the running lane.

[CecilOne]

No disagreement with the above, but wondering what ASA means by "visual distraction".

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
No disagreement with the above, but wondering what ASA means by "visual distraction".

Don't know where you are reading that in the book, but it would apply to a runner waving their arms when passing a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, or a runner waving his arms above his head in an attempt to interfere with a throw and possible distracting the recipient of the throw.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't know where you are reading that in the book, but it would apply to a runner waving their arms when passing a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, or a runner waving his arms above his head in an attempt to interfere with a throw and possible distracting the recipient of the throw.

That was my thought, too, Mike - some obvious intentional act to disrupt the fielder's view. Where it is in the rule book is POE 32. Here is the sentence in question...

It (that is, interference) may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual distraction, or any type of distraction which would hinder the fielder in the execution of the play.

No further explanation is given, and "visual distraction" is not in any of the case plays.

[Edited by Dakota on Aug 25th, 2003 at 11:49 AM]

[SC Ump]

"visual distraction"

I used to ump in Tampa where a nudie joint, "The 2001 Club", had a co-ed team. I never saw, but heard of times when the ladies would flash the other teams to try and make them drop infield flies. I wonder if this is what ASA is discussing.

BTW, when I asked my buds if the flashing cause the other time not to catch it, they replied, "You think I was watching the ball?"