Interference call today

[CoogansBluff]

I love it...this is almost like talking to a coach right on the field...

Where was the runner?

I don't recall.

Has she crossed home yet?

No.

But I thought you said you didn't recall where she was!

I wasn't asking because it had anything to do with a force out. It has everything to do about the run scoring or not. If she had crossed the plate before the act of interference, then the run would score. If not, then she goes back to third.

If you had asked ''Had the runner crossed home yet?" instead of ''Where was the runner?'', you would've gotten a quicker, more accurate response. Also, if your original post had said ''if runner had crossed home, answer is A'' and ''if runner had not crossed home, answer is B,'' then I would've gotten a quicker, more accurate response. So if we want to assess how this became harder than it needed to be, I would start there. But on a serious note, I do appreciate the explanation. I'm eager to learn and should know the rules better than I do. I was not coaching, fwiw. Just watching from the stands.

 

[RubberBiscuit]

Each play is different. Coaches tend to miss key information on these plays. A case in point is the initial play in the thread. The play neglects to mention a vital piece of information. And it isn't absent because someone forgot to write it. It is absent because the person didn't even know it was relevant.

This is one of the reasons I let coaches explain to me what they saw before I chime in with my version of events. 90%+ of the time the coach sinks himself. Examples would include, "She didn't even contact her" when they can't understand that there is interference nonetheless, "She was just reaching for the ball" or "She was about to catch the ball (most codes) when they can't understand that it is obstruction, or "The batters swung after the ball hit her" when they don't get that the ball is dead at contact.

OK Ump, looks like you might be a blue that respects his/her position - COOL.

So help me please, in pragmatic terms, not some legal mumbo jumbo that MIGHT be in the ASA rule book, how is Interference vs Obstruction ruled...? I know it is a judgement call but what are the guidelines?

To me it is a VERY basic guideline => You have to let the fielder field the ball. If you make contact with him (or even if you run in front of him and ‘screen’ him from making the play), you can be called out for interference.

This is why I would side with the Defense ANY time I thought the play was affected by the runner.

Your input please?

 

[BretMan]

If you had asked ''Had the runner crossed home yet?" instead of ''Where was the runner?'', you would've gotten a quicker, more accurate response. Also, if your original post had said ''if runner had crossed home, answer is A'' and ''if runner had not crossed home, answer is B,'' then I would've gotten a quicker, more accurate response. So if we want to assess how this became harder than it needed to be, I would start there. But on a serious note, I do appreciate the explanation. I'm eager to learn and should know the rules better than I do. I was not coaching, fwiw. Just watching from the stands.

Relax! Just having some fun with you.

 

[BretMan]

OK Ump, looks like you might be a blue that respects his/her position - COOL.

So help me please, in pragmatic terms, not some legal mumbo jumbo that MIGHT be in the ASA rule book, how is Interference vs Obstruction ruled...? I know it is a judgement call but what are the guidelines?

To me it is a VERY basic guideline => You have to let the fielder field the ball. If you make contact with him (or even if you run in front of him and ‘screen’ him from making the play), you can be called out for interference.

This is why I would side with the Defense ANY time I thought the play was affected by the runner.

Your input please?

There isn't really any mumbo jumbo and it's really not very difficult to understand.

To paraphrase the rule (because I don't have a book handy): The runner is out if the runner interferes with a fielder who is fielding a batted ball. Can't much simplier than that.

Running in front of a fielder, alone and of itself, is most likely not interference. The runner has a right to advance to the next base and as long as that's all she's doing, it isn't interference just because she happened to pass in front of a fielder.

If the runner does something other than that, it can be interference. Let's say that instead of advancing directly in a straight line to the next base, she pauses and purposely times it so that she will be in front of the fielder as the ball arrives, or maybe she stops in front of the fielder and dances around like she's trying to avoid the ball (which wouldn't be anywhere near her if she had just kept on advancing).

Now you may have an act of interfrence, since the runner was doing something other than advancing directly to the next base.

A couple of other ways this can go down...

Runner advancing, fielder charging the ball. Runner passes in front of fielder and causes fielder to check up to avoid a collision. Can be ruled as interference.

Runner advancing, fielder playing back behind the base line, not charging the ball but waiting for the ball to come to her. Runner passes in front of fielder. Probably not interference.

Sorry about using terms like "probably not interference" or "might be ruled as interference". You probaly want something more definitive, but there really isn't any definitive list that spells out every possible scenario, situation or act that will or will not be interference. It's impossible to list every possible thing that a runner or fielder might do on any given play. There will be degrees, nuances, shades, details and every play needs to be judged on its own merit.

But...you can start here.

1) Was the fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball?

If "yes", then...

2) Did the runner impede, hinder or confuse this fielder?

If "yes" then you have interference.

 

[Umpireernie]

No idea since umpires are all over the board on this these days.

Example - Pool game Thursday our SS hesitates on charging a ball and does not make the play as she was shy on the runner coming from 2nd going to 3rd. Our HC yells at her to next time run into the runner as they have to get out of the way of the defensive play.

Later in bracket play our SS ignores the runner coming from 2nd and in the process of fielding the ball makes contact with the runner coming from 2nd. In the confusion the runner from second continues on home to score - which we all thought was out on the contact,.... NOPE....

Just amazed by the bipolar ruling on this.....

Again it sounds like you have already decided that the entire umpiring community is conspiring against you and your team but here goes anyway..

In your first example what I am getting is that your F6 just hung back and waited for the ball to come to her. This was possibly because she was afraid the runner was going to run into her, I get that. But if runner does nothing to interfere with F6 (and merely running in front of F6 is not it) then we've got nothing and your HC was right to coach her to charge the ball. I can't judge what a player is thinking only her actions. How many times do you see a slow roller to F6 that she does not charge but just waits for the ball to come to her only to be late throwing out BR at 1B (I'm talking with no runner anywhere near her now).

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.. If F6 did charge the ball but held up suddenly to avoid an apparent collision with the runner from 2B then I can see a case to call INT. At that point the runner should have avoided F6 not the other way around. Contact is not necessary. It's the umpires judgement. I've called many of these, you know it when you see it.

In the 2nd example I'll again give you two possible scenarios as I didn't see the play and there is not much description offered..

So first let's say F6 has not yet fielded the ball or has gloved the ball and is moving to throw when runner runs into F6. This would be INT. Immediate dead ball, runner from 2B out, BR awarded 1B (scored as a fielders choice not a base hit btw) any other runners return to last base occupied at the time of the INT.

On the other hand, if F6 had fielded and thrown ball before contact was made or if she attempted to field the ball but it got by her or was muffed and out of her immediate reach before the contact was made then her protection is over and she is now just a defensive player without the ball impeding the runner from 2B and obstruction could be called. Obstruction is a delayed dead ball so the runner could very well continue on home and score.

It's not black and white and the umpires judgement is required.

Please try to keep in mind that just as the game has players of many levels of skill and experience. Out/safe is basic umpiring. Obstruction/interference is often advanced umpiring. It is quite possible that one or even both plays was called wrong. But it is also quite possible that both umpires got the calls correct. When your part of the team in competition and trying to win your predisposed to see it in favor of your team and that is only natural.

Bad calls do happen, they are as much a part of the game as bad hops, fielding errors, and baserunning mistakes. I have always thought that coaches could do well to coach their players past what they perceive as a bad call rather than expend so much time and energy arguing, berating, and attempting to intimidate the official. More often than not this just gets in the players heads that the "umps are against them" and play goes down hill fast which the coach will now also blame the umpire for.

 

[Umpireernie]

To me it is a VERY basic guideline => You have to let the fielder field the ball. If you make contact with him (or even if you run in front of him and ‘screen’ him from making the play), you can be called out for interference.

Bret has already covered that merely running in front of fielder attempting to field the batted ball is not in and of itself an act of interference. The runner has to avoid the fielder. She could hold up, run in front of, or run behind so long as no other act which can be judged as interference is made. Bret gave you some examples of those.

I would caution using phrase "you have to let the fielder field the ball" as all to often that is used in too broad of scope.

It's true the fielder trying to field the batted ball has right of way even without the ball in her possession. This is the only time she can hinder or impede the runner while she is not in possession of the ball.

Once she has fielded the ball or attempted to field the ball but no longer has it that protection is over. For the rest of the play in order for a fielder to impede a runner she must have the ball in her possession.

Here's a different spin on the batted ball to F6 play for you..

R1 at 2B. Batted ball multi hopper toward F6. R1 runs a couple feet behind F6 to avoid her. (Again, to be clear, she could run in front to avoid F6 as well but in this case she runs behind.) F6 attempts to field the ball but it bounces off heel of her glove and rolls on out to shallow center field. F6 turns and chases after the ball colliding with R1 and both fall to ground. R1 gets up and continues toward 3B. F8 charges the ball, picks it up and fires to F5 at 3B. F5 tags out R1 easily.

Once the ball got away from F6 and rolled to outfield her right to field the batted ball is over. She is now simply a defensive player without the ball impeding a runner. Obstruction. Since R1 was obstructed between 2B and 3B she can't be put out between those two bases. If the umpire judges R1 would have reached 3B sans the obstruction R1 is awarded 3B. If the umpire judges R1 would have not reached 3B even without the obstructions then she is put back at 2B.

Many times in situations similar to the above the defensive coach will argue that the defensive player has to be able to go after the ball. Not true. She can go after the ball but she cannot impede a runner in doing so.

Another wrinkle.. Depending on the situation two defensive players may have an opportunity to field the batted ball.. Example pop up between F6 and F5. It' the umpires judgement which player has the best opportunity to field the ball, the other fielder must get out of the runners way.

 

[RubberBiscuit]

I like the Umpire Ernie in this thread versus the other thread.

I agree with EVERYTHING you stated above in your two threads. It sounds like I really want YOU umpiring our games.

Ernie I will ask you for your honest opinion => Do you think that Interference/Obstruction, and I will still throw in IP's, are judged consistently and accurately by your umpire brethren in the higher levels of TB? (compared to any other aspect of the rules - throwing out that we are all human and will make mistakes from time to time).

I think you even already answered my question when you stated "Obstruction/interference is often advanced umpiring". What the heck is "advanced umpiring"? Either ya know the rules or ya don't be an umpire (beyond LL and rec league). There is no subset of rules that is acceptable for an umpire to know especially in the case of Interference/Obstruction and IP's that happen ALL THE TIME.

So with your assumed admitting this is "advanced umpiring" this suggests other umpires are not getting it right from your perspective too ,....therefore I think you are justifying my right to gripe here about umpires in general on these topics,.......no?

 

[CoogansBluff]

Relax! Just having some fun with you.

You should know that you can't have fun with coaches. They are way too serious. That's in the ASA book somewhere.

 

[Greenmonsters]

OMG. There are great, good, average, and poor umpires just like there are great, good, average, and poor coaches (and players and parents etc)???? What a revelation. I am enlightened.

 

[jppoker]

Had a play tonight on a little flare down third base line just in foul territory. Our third basemen ran into the runner that was leading off of third. It wasn't called interference but should it have been? She was trying to make the catch and was impeded.