Interference call on base runner

[tomzpc]

Runner on second and a grounder to SS who is playing deep. The runner runs in a direct path towards 3rd without slowing down and the ball passes by her closely although it doesn't touch her. The SS was about 3 feet behind the runner's path waiting to make the play and bobbled the ball because she was distracted by the passing runner. Umpire called the base-runner out for interference because the runner impeded the SS's chance to make a play.

Right call or not?

edit...never mind. Read through some older threads on here and it seems that it's a judgement call.

 

[CoogansBluff]

You have interfered if you prevent the fielder from being able to move into a better position to field the ball. But have you interfered if you unintentionally make it harder for the fielder to track the ball? As in jumping or stepping over a groundball?

 

[eddieq]

You have interfered if you prevent the fielder from being able to move into a better position to field the ball. But have you interfered if you unintentionally make it harder for the fielder to track the ball? As in jumping or stepping over a groundball?

Yes, intent makes no difference. As tomzpc indicated, it's umpire's judgement on if interference occurred.

 

[Ajaywill]

Runner on second and a grounder to SS who is playing deep. The runner runs in a direct path towards 3rd without slowing down and the ball passes by her closely although it doesn't touch her. The SS was about 3 feet behind the runner's path waiting to make the play and bobbled the ball because she was distracted by the passing runner. Umpire called the base-runner out for interference because the runner impeded the SS's chance to make a play.

Right call or not?

edit...never mind. Read through some older threads on here and it seems that it's a judgement call.

The part I bolded is the definition of interference....

You didn't mention what level this particular game was. At higher levels, (16u, 18u) it is usually expected that the shortstop would still be able to make that play in spite of the runner going in front of her and a three foot cushion as described. At 10u and 12u, the standard for calling interference is probably lower. In college level ball, even though the wording of the rule is very similar to other rulesets, umpires are trained that almost anything short of contact is NOT interference. Those players are expected to be skilled enough to make the play even with a runner in close proximity.

As you mentioned, the bottom line is that it is a judgement call.

 

[Ajaywill]

You have interfered if you prevent the fielder from being able to move into a better position to field the ball. But have you interfered if you unintentionally make it harder for the fielder to track the ball? As in jumping or stepping over a groundball?

If the runner is simply running from one base to the next and jumps or steps over the ball, it is probably nothing. If the runner stutter steps or slows down to deliberately jump or step over the ball as it is getting to the fielder, it COULD BE interference.

Judgement call. Usually have to be there to see the play to make an accurate ruling.

 

[CoogansBluff]

You didn't mention what level this particular game was. At higher levels, (16u, 18u) it is usually expected that the shortstop would still be able to make that play in spite of the runner going in front of her and a three foot cushion as described. At 10u and 12u, the standard for calling interference is probably lower. In college level ball, even though the wording of the rule is very similar to other rulesets, umpires are trained that almost anything short of contact is NOT interference. Those players are expected to be skilled enough to make the play even with a runner in close proximity.

Interesting. That helps explain it. You never never see a MLB baserunner called for interference for running between the ball and fielder unless there is contact, or if impedes the fielder's ability to charge. In fact, you hear announcers compliment a shortstop occasionally for the focus required to make that play.

I posted awhile back about a game this fall where an umpire called interference simply because the runner jumped over the grounder. His explanation was that it was automatic interference, whether it was a distraction or not. Claimed it was a USSSA rule. Normally a good umpire, but that one didn't make sense.

 

[MTR]

Runner on second and a grounder to SS who is playing deep. The runner runs in a direct path towards 3rd without slowing down and the ball passes by her closely although it doesn't touch her. The SS was about 3 feet behind the runner's path waiting to make the play and bobbled the ball because she was distracted by the passing runner. Umpire called the base-runner out for interference because the runner impeded the SS's chance to make a play.

Right call or not?

edit...never mind. Read through some older threads on here and it seems that it's a judgement call.

The part I bolded is the definition of interference....

You didn't mention what level this particular game was. At higher levels, (16u, 18u) it is usually expected that the shortstop would still be able to make that play in spite of the runner going in front of her and a three foot cushion as described. At 10u and 12u, the standard for calling interference is probably lower. In college level ball, even though the wording of the rule is very similar to other rulesets, umpires are trained that almost anything short of contact is NOT interference. Those players are expected to be skilled enough to make the play even with a runner in close proximity.

As you mentioned, the bottom line is that it is a judgement call.

I'm going to disagree here. That is not the definition of interference. The definition would be an ACT of interference by the runner that distracted the fielder. A fielder being distracted by something or someone does not necessarily mean someone is guilty of interference.