Interference by Runner: Effect on Batter

[Daddio]

USA rules, 2 outs, opposing team has a runner on 3rd, close game.

Opposing team batter hits a pop-up right at the runner who had taken a few steps lead-off of 3rd on the pitch. With 2 outs the runner should have been gone on contact but for whatever reason, the runner just waffled as the ball was coming down on her. Our 3rd basemen ends up doing a little dance to avoid the runner, there is some light contact, but our 3rd basemen ultimately catches the ball. The umpire signals "out", and the half-inning is over.

A quick discussion in our dugout is whether the 3rd out was on the interference, or on the pop-up. If on the interference, we reasoned that the same batter would be at bat the next time the opposing team comes up to bat. We reasoned that the interference is a immediate dead ball and out before the pop-up catch occurred. We favored this scenario, because the batter that popped up was batter number 7, and we might be able to get 3 outs the next time they bat without turning over the order.

Our coach goes out to ask the ump whether the out was on the interference or the catch. The ump says that he saw the interference, and would have called her out on the interference if our 3rd baseman had not caught the ball. We did not pursue/argue with the ump and kept playing.

So the question is, were we right? The runner's interference occurred prior to the batter being put-out, so the batter should have been up again?

Thanks for any insight.

 

[Greatdaytobeawildcat]

Interference is an immediate dead ball. Runner is out. But there are only three possible outcomes for the batter.
1) awarded first base
2) out if the interference prevented a fielder from catching a routine fly ball (fair or foul)
3) out if the interference prevented a double play
3) if the interference is on a fly foul ball that could not have been caught with ordinary effort, strike. (Rules supplement 33 A.1.d.)

In what you described, I would have both runner and batter out (4 outs). 8 batter hits next inning.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I have the batter out on the catch. If the play was successfully made, the runner didn't interfere.

 

[flash277]

I agree with TMIB, but for argument sake, if a runner knocks over.The SS who is waiting under a pop fly, SS falls flat on her back yet somehow catches the ball, thats out on a catch, no interference?

 

[EdLovrich]

NFHS ( I know OP was USA, but will wager rules are the same in this case)

8.6.10 The runner is out when:

The runner interferes:

b. with a fielder attempting to field a fly ball over foul territory.

PENATLY: The ball is dead and the runner is out. Each other runner must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. When a runner is called out for interference, the batter-runner is awarded first base and credited with a fielder's choice. If this interference, in the judgment of the umpire, is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the runner is put out, the immediate succeeding runner shall also be called out. If interference occurs by the runner on a foul fly ball, the runner is out and the ball is dead. A foul ball is called in this situation and the batter remains at bat unless it was a bunt attempt with two strikes on the batter, the batter is out in this case.

So, in OP, under NFHS (and as I said, I suspect the wording is similar in all codes. someone, please confirm/deny). the runner should have been called out if the umpire had interference (interference is an immediate dead ball), and the same batter leads off the next inning.

 

[mmeece]

I have the batter out on the catch. If the play was successfully made, the runner didn't interfere.

How could this be when interference is an immediate dead ball? If I have interference when the runner bumps the fielder the ball is immediately dead and the runner is out, right? I'm not waiting for the catch in that case or am I missing something?

 

[The Man In Blue]

How could this be when interference is an immediate dead ball? If I have interference when the runner bumps the fielder the ball is immediately dead and the runner is out, right? I'm not waiting for the catch in that case or am I missing something?

Because there was no interference.

You are correct, if/when you call interference it is an immediate dead ball. You cannot call interference after the ball is caught, though (the catch would negate any possibility of interference).

If the ball was dropped, you could call it after the fact and then rule the runner out for interference.

 

[EdLovrich]

TMIB, if there is contact between the runner and the fielder, you would need to call the interference even if the ball were caught. It makes a difference as to who is out. I know your argument is that there was no interference if the ball ends up being caught, but that is like arguing that a foul in basketball isn't a foul if the basket is made.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I don't know about basketball, so I cannot comment on that.

Interference is the act of hindering, impeding, or preventing the defense from making a play (a blend of codes’ terminology). If the defense successfully made the play, they were not hindered, impeded, or prevented from making the play.

If the runner interfered, yes, it should be called immediately, the ball is dead, the runner is out, and the batter would come up next inning. However, the umpire did not call it, so it was not interference and the batter is out. If he was waiting to see what happened, he did it wrong and cannot say after the ball was caught that interference happened

So, to answer the OP: I have the batter out on a fly out.

 

[EdLovrich]

A player can be impeded or hindered and still complete their action despite the interference, but the interference still occurred.