Interference by Runner: Effect on Batter

[mmeece]

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.

I see what you're saying now. I misread the initial post and didn't realize it hadn't been called prior to the catch.

 

[The Man In Blue]

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

By rule or by physics? Physically, yes. By rule, no.

 

[EdLovrich]

By rule or by physics? Physically, yes. By rule, no.

TMIB, I will respectfully disagree.

Runner on 3B, 1 out. Foul fly ball towards third. Runner makes contact with the fielder causing her to alter her path to get to the ball. Fielder makes an ESPN web-gem diving catch. By your interpretation you have no interference and batter is out and runner staying on third with now 2 out. By my interpretation (and by rule per my argument), I have interference, 2 out, no runners on base and 0-1 count on the batter.

There was clearly interference that occurred, it needs to be called immediately and whether or not the catch is made has no bearing.

 

[radness]

Say with runners on 1st & 2nd.
Ball hit to SS.
Slight contact runner passing while SS proceeds to turn a double play with 2nd to 1st.

No hindrence.
But yes contact.

Dead ball would only = 1 out.

Oddly in a posible double play situation...it would be interesting strategy to purposely have runner make contact to create a dead ball...
Even on a quick come-backer to interfere with a double play.

to TMIB perspective...
Can understand the no hindrence.

 

[EdLovrich]

Say with runners on 1st & 2nd.
Ball hit to SS.
Slight contact runner passing while SS proceeds to turn a double play with 2nd to 1st.

No hindrence.
But yes contact.

Dead ball would only = 1 out.

Oddly in a posible double play situation...it would be interesting strategy to purposely have runner make contact to create a dead ball...
Even on a quick come-backer to interfere with a double play.

to TMIB perspective...
Can understand the no hindrence.

If there is an obvious attempt to break up a doubleplay, you will have two out.

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.

 

[radness]

If there is an obvious attempt to break up a doubleplay, you will have two out.

... like it was said
Slight contact is contact...

Thats you deciding if it was on purpose or not.

Just like it could be with a defensive player purposly making contact with runners.

Btw not picking a side to the umpires differing on this.
Because
I already know umpires differ on calls.

Just more reasons to always finish the play!

 

[EdLovrich]

Thats you deciding if it was on purpose or not.

This is what we get paid for, making decisions and our judgment. We just all work within (ideally) the same rules and interpretations.

 

[radness]

We just all work within (ideally) the same rules and interpretations.

Pretty sure people understand what umpires are for
But thanku
(just a little fun)

Do you think all umpires use the same interpretations?

 

[EdLovrich]

Pretty sure people understand what umpires are for
But thanku
(just a little fun)

Do you think all umpires use the same interpretations?

Nope. I do no think we all do. But, it is a work in progress.

 

[The Man In Blue]

TMIB, I will respectfully disagree.

Runner on 3B, 1 out. Foul fly ball towards third. Runner makes contact with the fielder causing her to alter her path to get to the ball. Fielder makes an ESPN web-gem diving catch. By your interpretation you have no interference and batter is out and runner staying on third with now 2 out. By my interpretation (and by rule per my argument), I have interference, 2 out, no runners on base and 0-1 count on the batter.

There was clearly interference that occurred, it needs to be called immediately and whether or not the catch is made has no bearing.

I believe we are actually agreeing, I’m being obstinate in my point.

Runner on 3B, 1 out. Foul fly ball towards third. Runner makes contact with the fielder causing her to alter her path to get to the ball.

Stop there. Interference, runner is out

Runner on 3B, 1 out. Foul fly ball towards third. Runner makes contact with the fielder causing her to alter her path to get to the ball. Fielder makes an ESPN web-gem diving catch.

So the umpire judged no interference. You have an out on a catch or a foul ball. No interference.

The point I am trying to make is that interference is IMMEDIATE. It is not obstruction, you do not wait to see what happens. If there is no call, you do not go back afterwards.