Interference call

[Chadb]

I appreciate the discussion ... no offense at all. This is how we learn and I do make mistakes. I challenge my student to prove me wrong ... because I do require proof!

Yes, the frame I posted is after the runner passed and the alleged interference occurred. I posted that frame to show how far off the fielder was when she reacted to the ball and, in my judgment, why the runner did not hinder or impede the fielder. From what I see, we have a fielder who made a bad read on a ball.

Watching it at 1/4 speed, I see a fielder who is too busy watching the runner instead of playing the ball. The runner did not cause that. I cannot protect a fielder who is not playing the ball. Could it have been interference if the fielder had been under the ball and playing it? Possibly. It is tough to penalize a player for bad play, but we also cannot reward them for it.

What would I have needed for an interference call? A continual motion by the fielder to get to the ball. It is very possible my read of her misread is incorrect, but that is what I see when a fielder runs to the wrong spot, stops, and then has to readjust at the last moment because she lost the ball. I would want to see her eyes on the ball with a glance to the runner, not looking at the runner most of the way and then picking the ball up as it is close to hitting the ground.

Varsity game yesterday, R2 stealing third. The catcher takes two steps while getting behind the batter to make the throw. She was not avoiding the batter, she just chose to go wide. As she reaches that spot, the batter begins to back up. The throw gets off clean, but it was close to being an interference call. Coach comes out to ask. Another couple of inches and I definitely would have had the call. Had the catcher just come up and thrown I would have had the call. The reason I didn't give the call was because the catcher moved to her position on her own. It was a bad position, but it was her position, the batter did not force her there. The batter moved that way, but didn't cause the catcher to have to keep going.

I see the same thing here. The runner may have been there, but the runner is not what forced any of that to occur.

Does the level of play affect this call? I will say, "Possibly." Maybe I am applying too strict of a standard and these are lower level or less experienced players and we should be giving the interference call. As many have said, too many variables that we don't have answers to.

I know this thread is a little old, but at 1/4 speed, it appears to me that 2b is moving towards the ball and has to stop her progress because of the runner. Isn't that a classic case of runner interference?

 

[The Man In Blue]

I know this thread is a little old, but at 1/4 speed, it appears to me that 2b is moving towards the ball and has to stop her progress because of the runner. Isn't that a classic case of runner interference?

At 1/4 speed, I would say that is a classic case of the players being lazy.

I think the best answer is: in your judgement, if that is what it was, then in your judgement that is what it was.

 

[Agcy]

A glance is not interference.

Let me fix that a bit ... the ball was definitely catchable had she not set up six feet away from the ball's actual path.

Was it windy? I'm inclined to believe it was, but she was never tracking the ball until it was too late. A catchable ball? Yes. The way it was played? No. Umpires bailed her out if they ultimately came back with interference.

I rarely see things different from you and feel a little dirty when I do. But, IMO, the second baseman had to run around the runner in pursuit of the catch, therefore I would have called interference. I don’t think it matters how long it take the defender to react, when she did react, a) she had a chance to catch the ball b) she had to move around the runner to execute the play.

But, in real time it is a lot to take in and I could see the call going the other way as well.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I rarely see things different from you and feel a little dirty when I do. But, IMO, the second baseman had to run around the runner in pursuit of the catch, therefore I would have called interference. I don’t think it matters how long it take the defender to react, when she did react, a) she had a chance to catch the ball b) she had to move around the runner to execute the play.

But, in real time it is a lot to take in and I could see the call going the other way as well.

I ... think that's a compliment? So, thank you?

I can't disagree with you. If that is how you saw it, that is how you saw it. I can only lay out my case, but if we were on the field and you made your call, then that's what you have.

In instant replay parlance, that is a "call stands" kind of call as opposed to a "call is confirmed/overturned" call.

 

[MoJo]

At 1/4 speed, I would say that is a classic case of the players being lazy.

I think the best answer is: in your judgement, if that is what it was, then in your judgement that is what it was.

So umps are evaluating effort in their calls? Are you running a stop watch for reaction time? Teens and pre-teens are not HS boys or college players. An outsider has no clue of a players ability or disabilities.

They are also breaking school habits of being nice taking turns, etc.

Calling them lazy is wrong. Having some bias of "expected athletic" performance" is erroneous assumption.

 

[The Man In Blue]

So umps are evaluating effort in their calls? Are you running a stop watch for reaction time? Teens and pre-teens are not HS boys or college players. An outsider has no clue of a players ability or disabilities.

They are also breaking school habits of being nice taking turns, etc.

Calling them lazy is wrong. Having some bias of "expected athletic" performance" is erroneous assumption.

It was a joke about the players choosing to move at 1/4 speed instead of watching the video at 1/4 speed. But since we are going to go there, it's just as wrong as chastising every umpire every time.

There are times when we do have to do that though. Infield fly comes to mind. We have to gauge what is "normal effort" ... not the effort the player is giving, but the expected effort. Yes, that changes dramatically based on age, skill level, and even the wind.

I do like the taking turns idea though! No, coach she didn't interfere, she was just being polite and taking turns.