Interference call

[canyonjoe]

Runners were on 1st and 3rd and 2 outs already.

I know the rule, but there is always one parent in the stands that yells it when their team doesn't catch a popup.

 

[nixxy311]

I know the rule, but there is always one parent in the stands that yells it when their team doesn't catch a popup.

I'm glad I was at home watching this instead of being there. I was watching w/o sound so didn't hear the parents initially when it was happening. I did go back and listen to see what they were saying however - kind of fun. I'm sure I've said similar things before
I always had a hard time trying to be quiet and I normally sit right next to the camera

 

[The Man In Blue]

I did notice F4 glance at the runner, I guess to miss a collision. I def think the ball was catchable had she not hesitated on her initial run to the ball.

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.

 

[MoJo]

A play like that is likely to have a LONG conversation between umpires. Why? We are discussing the ONE look we got in real time. We are trying to take apart every element.

My initial thought in real time, I have no interference call.

F4 was camped out in the wrong spot and, when she realized it, made a quick move to get to the ball. It just happened to be the runner had already passed her initial position and the fielder was actually chasing the runner's path so the fielder could get to the ball. The runner did not block the fielder's view of a pop fly; the fielder lost the ball. The runner did not crash into the camped out fielder (contact is NOT needed though!). Could the runner have given a little more room? Maybe, but the runner is already past the fielder's initial position on the ball.

Watching it again ... I'm not changing my initial call.

Or reality ......that the fielders reaction to the hit ball was totally within average and expected period of time.

The runner was not past the fielder when the play started. But that doesn't matter. The runner interrupted the play.

""a runner must vacate any space needed by a fielder to make a play on a batted ball""
""A runner has committed interference when that runner denies a defensive player a reasonable opportunity to make a play by physically contacting that fielder and prevents them fielding a fair batted ball, a foul fly ball, or a foul ground ball that might become fair.""
""Interference is an act which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play""

That's it. Simple. All the rule books say the same thing. The duty or responsibility is ON THE RUNNER. No exception. Runner on legally occupied base still has to be aware and not hinder intentionally.


Reality....dark, artificial lights, cold, windy, shadows. All legit influences on the fielder and the play. Runner had plenty of opportunity to do something else.

Just yesterday I say a tall regular pop up to the SS then drift 25 feet. SS was making the play and was the protected fielder the whole time. She paused and side stepped and adjusted a few times.

 

[Greatdaytobeawildcat]

Umpires bailed her out if they ultimately came back with interference.

I don't think this angle gives us the information we really need, and I think you may be implying things about the play we can't really see (how close the runner/fielder are, if there is contact, is the runner causing the fielder's progress towards the ball to be interrupted). It really doesn't matter if the fielder got a bad/late read or not - it's only did the runner interfere with her making the play (also, the "play" isn't just the catch/no catch, but there's a potential play at 1b too). It could be that the runner didn't interfere, but I don't think we can see what you're saying you see. (friendly argument here, not digging).

Unfortunately, these guys are stuck in cement, mask on, hands in pocket, so who knows if they got any better look at it. I defend our guys usually, except when they don't move. It grinds me so much.

 

[CoachJD]

View attachment 27639

I think this is the wrong still frame to use because it occurs after the interference takes place. The reason the 2B is in that spot is because she had to stop to not get trucked by the runner (and it looks like there may have been some contact, but hard to tell for sure).

This is where the interference actually occurs. The 2B is tracking the ball and stops because either she contacts the runner or she is trying to avoid contacting the runner. The screen shot you posted is her trying to recover and get to a spot she easily could've gotten to if not for the runner.

That said, your point about this being difficult in real time is taken, and I completely understand that umpires don't get to review video.

 

[EdLovrich]

Agreed, not the best angle. That being said, unless R1 made contact with F4' glove running by, I cannot see interference. (Again, from the provided angle)

Also agreed, the crew needs to be more mobile to get in better position to make this call. By being static, they have created their own monster of having to deal with an argument rather than make the call definitively and forestall any discussion.

 

[MoJo]

Agreed, not the best angle. That being said, unless R1 made contact with F4' glove running by, I cannot see interference. (Again, from the provided angle)

Also agreed, the crew needs to be more mobile to get in better position to make this call. By being static, they have created their own monster of having to deal with an argument rather than make the call definitively and forestall any discussion.

Another opinion were interference CANT happen without contact.....which Is wrong

 

[EdLovrich]

Another opinion were interference CANT happen without contact.....which Is wrong

I am in no way saying contact had to happen for interference in general. I am saying that in this case, unless the runner made contact with the fielder's glove and that is what caused to 'funny' motion of the 2B's arm, I do not see interference by the runner.

In other words, the runner did not cause any change in the fielder's ability or inability to field the batted ball. From the angle we have in the clip it looks as if the fielder is completely unaware of the runner. It is hard for a fielder to be interfered with, obstructed, impeded, hindered or confused, by a runner if she is unaware of them absent physical contact, not impossible but unlikely to happen if she just doesn't know the person is there.

 

[The Man In Blue]

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.