Interference or Obstruction?

[Alsmygal]

DD's team played in a tournament over the weekend and ran into the following situation:

Runners at second and third. Hard grounder hit between SS and the 2 base. SS was playing up in front of the baseline. Ball got through very quick. SS turned to chase after it towards the grass and collides with the base runner on her way to third. Field ump called interference and called the runner out.

I personally thought it should've been an obstruction called and base runner would've been awarded third had they thrown her out. Ball actually was hit into a nice gap and she would've scored on that play easily.

Same ump was behind the plate on a previous game of ours and situation was where a bunted ball was hit, the bat was dropped in fair territory towards the first base line and the ball then rolled into the bat in fair territory. He said bat was part of the playing field so therefore, fair ball/live ball. When we questioned another ump about it later, he said it should've been a dead ball once it hit the bat the second time.

What's the right call?

 

[Umpire]

Regarding the second part, when the BALL hits the BAT, the BAT did not hit the BALL a second time. When the bat isn't moving, there is no interference. The idea is that the batter can control what they do with the bat (i.e., where they choose to drop it). The batter cannot control the ball once it is hit. Live ball. Play on.

 

[mgardner]

If the batter drops the bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair
territory and, in the Umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere
with the course of the ball, the batter is not out and the ball is live and in
play.

 

[mogsoftball]

The first example sounds like it should have been obstruction. If the ball got past the fielder, and fielder then turned and ran after the ball and collided with the runner. The fielder has a right to make a play on the ball without being impeded by the runner, however once the ball is past them they no longer have a right to the baseline.

But it is the kind of play you have to see to really judge was the ball actually past her and the attempt to field it was over.

 

[Umpire]

The first example sounds like it should have been obstruction. If the ball got past the fielder, and fielder then turned and ran after the ball and collided with the runner. The fielder has a right to make a play on the ball without being impeded by the runner, however once the ball is past them they no longer have a right to the baseline.

But it is the kind of play you have to see to really judge was the ball actually past her and the attempt to field it was over.

Was the fielder (1) in the act of fielding a batted ball and (2) did the runner hinder the fielder?

 

[Alsmygal]

Was the fielder (1) in the act of fielding a batted ball and (2) did the runner hinder the fielder?

I personally didn't see it as the SS being in the act of fielding a batted ball. The ball was hit very hard and was past the infield extremely fast. The SS turned to chase after it towards left/center and the two players collided. It appeared to me that since the SS was turned around and running towards the outfield chasing the ball, the runner should've had the right-of-way, but the umpire seemed to have a different opinion.

 

[MTR]

I personally didn't see it as the SS being in the act of fielding a batted ball. The ball was hit very hard and was past the infield extremely fast. The SS turned to chase after it towards left/center and the two players collided. It appeared to me that since the SS was turned around and running towards the outfield chasing the ball, the runner should've had the right-of-way, but the umpire seemed to have a different opinion.

If, in the umpire's judgment, the fielder had any possible chance of making a play on the batted ball, it is INT. If not, it is OBS. But no matter what you, me or anyone else believed, only the umpire's judgment counts.