Interference, or not?

[cvsoftball]

12.19 Interference
Interference is an act that denies a defensive player a reasonable opportunity
to make a play (field/throw) anywhere on the playing field� The act may
be intentional or unintentional, and the ball must have been playable�
Interference may be caused by individual offensive players (batter, on-deck
batter, batter-runner, base runner), coaches, umpires, nongame personnel
or spectators, by the offensive team as a whole or by loose equipment that
belongs to them�

 

[smddad]

This seems to better define interference.

12.19 Interference
Interference is an act that denies a defensive player a reasonable opportunity
to make a play (field/throw) anywhere on the playing field. The act may be
intentional or unintentional, and the ball must have been playable. Interference
may be caused by individual offensive players (batter, on-deck batter, batterrunner,
runner), coaches, umpires, nongame personnel or spectators, and by
the offensive team as a whole or by loose equipment that belongs to them.

As a general rule, when batter, batter-runner, on-deck batter, runner or
coach interference occurs: (1) the ball becomes dead, (2) the violator is called
out, and (3) each runner must return to the last base that, in the umpire’s
judgment, was legally touched at the time of the interference, except when
forced to go to the next base because the batter became a batter-runner. If the
batter-runner has not touched first base at the time of the interference, each
runner shall return to the base legally occupied at the time of the pitch. When
a runner(s) is called out for interference, the batter-runner is awarded first
base. If the official scorer judges the batted ball would have been a hit, the
batter is credited with a base hit, but if not, it is scored as a fielder’s choice.

 

[smddad]

You also have the following:

12.19.2 The base runner may not interfere with a fielder attempting to throw
the ball.
12.19.3 The base runner may not intentionally interfere with a thrown ball.
Note: A runner hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute
interference.

 

[Comp]

The ball has already been thrown so you cannot have interference with a fielder attempting to throw the ball. And, interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. It certainly looks like the runner is sizing up where the catcher is receiving the ball from and moves to block the path of the throw. But, this is purely going to be umpire judgement as to if they judged the runner to have intentionally interfered with the throw.

 

[Eric F]

Good info, guys. It looks to me like she just played the odds that lining herself up with the catcher might make receiving the throw more difficult, and her gamble paid off.

 

[darken]

This seems to better define interference.

As a general rule, when batter, batter-runner, on-deck batter, runner or
coach interference occurs: (1) the ball becomes dead, (2) the violator is called
out, and (3) each runner must return to the last base that, in the umpire’s
judgment, was legally touched at the time of the interference, except when
forced to go to the next base because the batter became a batter-runner. If the
batter-runner has not touched first base at the time of the interference, each
runner shall return to the base legally occupied at the time of the pitch. When
a runner(s) is called out for interference, the batter-runner is awarded first
base. If the official scorer judges the batted ball would have been a hit, the
batter is credited with a base hit, but if not, it is scored as a fielder’s choice.

Not to nit pick, but how does an on deck batter or coach get called out? I think it's the runner closest to home that is called out in those cases.

 

[MTR]

Not to nit pick, but how does an on deck batter or coach get called out? I think it's the runner closest to home that is called out in those cases.

That is because the citation is incorrect. The rule is printed as "(2) an out is called" and it is the runner closest to the plate when the interference is called on a non-active participant (live B, BR or R).

AFA the play is concerned, the runner established her route prior to the release of the throw. For that matter, it looked like she was going inside before F5 even fielded the ball, so lacking some other act on behalf of the runner to interfere, IMO, this is just heads up base running and no different then a runner rounding 2nd wide when a throw to 3rd is coming from center/right center field.

 

[corlay]

Since the runner starts ~2' to the foul side of the line,
then takes a "bowed" path >3' to the fair side of the line,
I would expect an Interference call. Definitely "intentional", IMO.

A "bowed path" is expected when a Runner rounds and continues through a base,
but not when starting the play at 3B and running to HP.

 

[Eric F]

Since the runner starts ~2' to the foul side of the line,
then takes a "bowed" path >3' to the fair side of the line,
I would expect an Interference call. Definitely "intentional", IMO.

A "bowed path" is expected when a Runner rounds and continues through a base,
but not when starting the play at 3B and running to HP.

If the runner made an intentional move to deflect the ball already in flight, I would agree with an interference call. As MTR noted, her path was already underway before the fielder released the ball, and she did not alter her path once the ball was in flight. Yes, the established a path was intentionally lined up with the catcher's position, and designed to make the play more challenging for the defense, but I don't see where it violates a rule. I say smart base-running.

 

[corlay]

As MTR noted, her path was already underway before the fielder released the ball, and she did not alter her path once the ball was in flight.

I disagree.

Stop the vid when the 3B player begins to make her throw, then continue the vid.
You will see the Runner's path continues further into the field of play, before turning her path toward HP.

Way too difficult to determine in real-time, but in slo-mo I think she breaks MTR's rule...