Interference on thrown ball from the outfield

[CPEM]

I've been hearing or seeing some interesting ones lately. I appreciate everyone's help.

ASA Rec 12u, one umpire

Watching a game between one of our league's 12u teams and another league's 12u team. Nobody on, nobody out, visitors (other league) up to bat. B1 lines one into the gap in right-center field. As she rounds 1B, she's obstructed by F3 who has turned to watch her teammates chase the ball. The umpire signals the obstruction and the runner continues to 2B. As the batter is rounding 2B, F8 retrieves the ball and overthrows her cutoff (F4). F6 is near 2B and the ball gets by her as well. In fact, the ball is on a direct line to F5 straddling 3B. The ball bounces directly behind BR1 and rolls directly ahead of her. At almost the same moment that she looks down at the ball, it slows down considerably and she kicks it while running to 3B. She kicks it ahead of her to F5. Ball and runner arrive at the base at almost the exact same time, and I see a tag applied. Umpire calls BR1 out on what I thought was a close play. Turns out he actually called her out for interference (kicking the ball). Offensive coach wasn't happy. Between innings, we discussed the play. He said that he felt that she intentionally kicked the ball and that he got that from when she looked down at the ball. I know this sounds like a HTBT scenario, but I was there, and I saw what he saw. I don't think there was enough time between the ball getting in front of BR1 and her kicking it while in motion in that direction for her to develop the intent to kick the ball. I think that was further evidenced by the fact that she kicked it straight to F5 and making it a close play. I went to the rulebook to try to support my stance, but all I can find is ASA Rule 8-7-J-3:
THE RUNNER IS OUT when a runner interferes with a thrown ball.
or ASA Rule 8-2-F-3:
THE BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT when the batter-runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box.

Am I missing something, or is he correct? Is he correct because of his judgment on intent? If so, does the call change if intent is not present?

 

[Sweet Lou]

Without seeing the play too tough to judge but if the ump thought she intentionally tried to kick the ball then yes, out on interference.

If it was just dumb luck it hit her, then no the ump was wrong on the call.

 

[MTR]

Nobody on, nobody out, visitors (other league) up to bat. B1 lines one into the gap in right-center field. As she rounds 1B, she's obstructed by F3 who has turned to watch her teammates chase the ball. The umpire signals the obstruction and the runner continues to 2B.

As the batter is rounding 2B, F8 retrieves the ball and overthrows her cutoff (F4). F6 is near 2B and the ball gets by her as well. In fact, the ball is on a direct line to F5 straddling 3B. The ball bounces directly behind BR1 and rolls directly ahead of her. At almost the same moment that she looks down at the ball, it slows down considerably and she kicks it while running to 3B. She kicks it ahead of her to F5. Ball and runner arrive at the base at almost the exact same time, and I see a tag applied. Umpire calls BR1 out on what I thought was a close play. Turns out he actually called her out for interference (kicking the ball).

Offensive coach wasn't happy. Between innings, we discussed the play. He said that he felt that she intentionally kicked the ball and that he got that from when she looked down at the ball. I know this sounds like a HTBT scenario, but I was there, and I saw what he saw. I don't think there was enough time between the ball getting in front of BR1 and her kicking it while in motion in that direction for her to develop the intent to kick the ball. I think that was further evidenced by the fact that she kicked it straight to F5 and making it a close play. I went to the rulebook to try to support my stance, but all I can find is ASA Rule 8-7-J-3:
THE RUNNER IS OUT when a runner interferes with a thrown ball.
or ASA Rule 8-2-F-3:
THE BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT when the batter-runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box.

Am I missing something, or is he correct? Is he correct because of his judgment on intent? If so, does the call change if intent is not present?

To start, this isn't a batter-runner. The runner is out for interfering with a thrown ball. Intent is not necessary. However, obviously a runner does not have eyes in the back of her head, at least none that I know, and isn't expected to avoid a ball thrown in her direction.

This is a pure judgment call whether I'm there to see it or not. However, the umpire should have ruled and signaled "dead ball", not just call the runner out if the purpose for the ruling was interference.

Of course, now the question is why would the runner look down just as a ball was passing her? To me, that could be an indication she WAS aware of the ball which may have what caused the ruling.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

... The ball bounces directly behind BR1 and rolls directly ahead of her. At almost the same moment that she looks down at the ball, it slows down considerably and she kicks it while running to 3B. She kicks it ahead of her to F5. Ball and runner arrive at the base at almost the exact same time, and I see a tag applied. ... I think that was further evidenced by the fact that she kicked it straight to F5 and making it a close play.

You say the kick made it a close play. Did it impede, hinder or confuse the defense (i.e. interfere) or did it in fact aid them?

Did the runner maintain her stride or did she alter it when she kicked the ball?

 

[MT 73]

Interfering with a thrown ball has to be intentional in order to call an out.
Otherwise every time a runner is hit with a thrown ball during a run down you would have an out.

Without seeing the play too tough to judge but if the ump thought she intentionally tried to kick the ball then yes, out on interference.

Exactly.

 

[CPEM]

You say the kick made it a close play. Did it impede, hinder or confuse the defense (i.e. interfere) or did it in fact aid them?

Did the runner maintain her stride or did she alter it when she kicked the ball?

Kicking the ball AIDED the defense. Without the kick, the ball stops moving about 2/3 of the way between 2B and 3B and BR1 easily attains 3B without a play. She did not break nor alter her stride.

 

[Ajaywill]

Kicking the ball AIDED the defense. Without the kick, the ball stops moving about 2/3 of the way between 2B and 3B and BR1 easily attains 3B without a play. She did not break nor alter her stride.

This was the result of the play when it ended. Unfortunately, interference needs to be called when it happens. the umpire doesn't have the luxury of waiting to see what happens.

It seems as if this particular umpire did not handle it correctly, but then again, it could have taken a second for it to register that the runner kicked the ball.

 

[canyonjoe]

To muddy the waters here, if the umpire felt she would have made to third without obstruction call on F3, would he be entitled to give Batter 3rd?

 

[MT 73]

To muddy the waters here, if the umpire felt she would have made to third without obstruction call on F3, would he be entitled to give Batter 3rd?

Yes--the umpire has the right to award any bases that he felt would have been earned without the obstruction.

Specifically relating to the play being discussed? No. Any act of interference by the runner would cancel the obstruction call and the runner would be out.

Good point and very true.

 

[BretMan]

To muddy the waters here, if the umpire felt she would have made to third without obstruction call on F3, would he be entitled to give Batter 3rd?

Generally, yes. That is the way obstruction works. The runner gets placed on whichever base the umpire judges she would have reached, had she not been obstructed.

Specifically relating to the play being discussed? No. Any act of interference by the runner would cancel the obstruction call and the runner would be out.