interference--who would have called this the same way?

[Tap]

ASA adult rec. SP, E league (or worse) playoff game. I was PU.

R1 at 3B, R2 at 1B, no outs. Batter hits moderate to slow grounder to F5, who was playing a touch behind the base. R1 make some verbal comments to F5, presumably trying to distract him, and then takes two agressive steps into fair territory, directly toward F5, who by then was even with the base. R1 was going to hold at 3B and was not running home; it was quite obvious to everyone that he was running at F5 to distract him. In my opinion (and not just because he had showed poor sportsmanship the entire game), he was trying to hinder F5's ability to catch and/or throw the ball, I called a dead ball, R1 out.

I awarded the batter 1B and R2 2B. I probably would have let it go had R1 not taken two steps toward F5 into the diamond in an obvious attempt to distract F5. I'm confident I made the correct call, both in terms of interference and awarding the batter 1B, as F5 had no play at 2B for a potential DP and F5 didn't even look there, but threw to 1B (in time to get the runner, but that's irrelevant as the ball was dead by then). I don't think R1 was trying to prevent a DP; he was just trying to make F5 bobble (thus, everyone safe) or make a poor throw to F3.

My partner, who has more years of experience than I and is a highly respected umpire, said I either should have let it go or called a double play, as "the rule book does not cover every situation." I disagreed and said the rule book covers this precisely and that the DP call was only appropriate if it was an obvious attempt to prevent a DP. I think calling a DP (the other out would be the immediately succeeding runner, R2, as I understand the rules) would have been overkill here. The penalty that resulted may not have been that severe here, as F5 would have made the play and R1 was not going home, but that's beside the point and irrelevant, as we cannot "wait and see" how the play turns out before call interference. Any thoughts?

[Edited by Tap on Sep 4th, 2003 at 09:32 AM]

[18597]

Sounds like a good call to me

[Del-Blue]

Tap,

Sounds like a good call to me.

[SamNVa]

Good call Tap,

It appears that the defense was only going to get 1 out on the play which they got, plus they lost a guy in scoring position. Sometimes ev en experienced veteran umps can let their judgement be clouded by ome a--hole's actions and want to penalize more than is allowed by the rules. I think you handled the situation quite well.

SamC

[greymule]

Too bad you couldn't think of a way to award 2 outs. Couldn't you have said that the interference prevented F5's chance at an around-the-horn DP?

What would you have called if F5 had not blinked an eye but merely proceeded to get a DP?

Had the batter hit an easy pop to F5, calling a DP would have been in order.

You said that the runner exhibited poor sportsmanship the entire game. Did he argue the call?

[TexBlue]

I agree with the call you made. The double play potential is with an "intentional" attempt to break up a double play. The other scenario involves a fly ball, where the runner interfering is out and the batter also. It sounds like you went with your gut instinct, which I believe was correct. Just don't over think the situation.

However, I do believe, if the intent was there, and, from the post, I believe it was, he probable deserved to be ejected from the game also. Just a matter of opinion, but I believe if the runner was close enough to deliberately interfere, this is unsportsmanlike conduct and deserves what he gets. Again, that is the prerogative of the umpire who saw the play, but either decision could be backed up.

[Edited by TexBlue on Sep 4th, 2003 at 12:56 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Add me to your corner. You viewed the situation, made an evaluation and ruled on the play in accordance with the rule. Good job.

[CecilOne]

As long as we're doing hypotheticals lately, and I love absurdity as much as anyone, here's one. What would R1 have to do in this situation to be judged intentionally interfering with a DP?

[TexBlue]

Exactly what he did, in my book. But, since the throw beat the BR anyway, it didn't work. I would make the same call that was made and eject the player.

Rick

[mo99]

Absolutely the correct call.This is verbal interference.I dont think an ejection is warranted unless profanity was used,he threatened the player, or he argued the call.Good job!

Jeff

[TexBlue]

I dont think an ejection is warranted unless profanity was used,he threatened the player, or he argued the call.

The original post said "aggressive steps toward F5 were taken" and verbal comments made to distract the player. To me that's enough. That isn't base running, that's a implied threat. Now, I don't call adult ball very much anymore, but that's the makings of several ejections if someone doesn't step in quick and handle it. I'm not saying that the ejection was necessary, it's a HTBT. But it sounds like a viable option.

Rick

[greymule]

What would R1 have to do in this situation to be judged intentionally interfering with a DP?

If the ball had been hard hit to F5, you'd have a case.

I've been trying to think of a way to call R1 out for USC and then call the lead runner out for interference by somebody already out. However, the out on R1 would kill the play.

It seems that a player can sometimes get away with deliberate, unsportsmanlike interference and cost his team only the 1 out the defense would have gotten anyway.

In this case, the interference costs the offense the runner on 3B, but it is possible for such a play to help the offense:

Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, no outs. Charles grounds to F3, who starts to throw home to get Abel. Baker, seeing that Abel will be out at home, runs over F3. With the interference call, the offense has Abel on 3B, Charles on 1B with 1 out, instead of Baker on 2B and Charles on 1B with 1 out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
What would R1 have to do in this situation to be judged intentionally interfering with a DP?

If the ball had been hard hit to F5, you'd have a case.

I've been trying to think of a way to call R1 out for USC and then call the lead runner out for interference by somebody already out. However, the out on R1 would kill the play.

It seems that a player can sometimes get away with deliberate, unsportsmanlike interference and cost his team only the 1 out the defense would have gotten anyway.

Being removed from 3B for a stupid move with no outs will probably get that player a fair amount of grief.

In this case, the interference costs the offense the runner on 3B, but it is possible for such a play to help the offense:

Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, no outs. Charles grounds to F3, who starts to throw home to get Abel. Baker, seeing that Abel will be out at home, runs over F3. With the interference call, the offense has Abel on 3B, Charles on 1B with 1 out, instead of Baker on 2B and Charles on 1B with 1 out.

Pretty dumb play on behalf of F3. If R2 can run over F3, that means F3 had an easy DP at 1B while still holding R1 on 3B. INT on that play attain the same result.

[bluezebra]

Good call. R1 OUT for interference. R1 ejected for flagrant unsportsmanlike conduct.

Bob

[SC Ump]

I hope I would have made the same call. I think it is proper.

I prefer to delay these calls a bit, though. I know this will get some flack, but here is my thinking. Interference is an immediate dead ball at the time of the incident. However, to me an "immediate dead ball" is different than a "dead ball called immdiately."

In our bang-bang calls at bases and calls on tags, we are taught to delay our call to replay the play in your head or insure the fielder really held onto the ball like you think you saw. In the case of interference, I delay the call to insure that what I think I saw really caused the interference. In this particular example, if the runner took two steps and the umpire immediately called dead ball and the fielder did not throw... then would the fielder have thrown if the umpire had not killed the play.

If in this example, the umpire delayed the call slightly and the fielder threw the BR out, then it could be perhaps that R1 attempted to interfere but actually didn't. (He can still be ejected for USC if so warrented.)

If the umpire delayed the call and the fielder did not throw, or perhaps threw wildly, then the interference could be awarded.

(By the way, I'm not saying the umpire did or did not delay the call in the initial scenario, I'm only using that example for illustrating my outcomes.)