Is there a good way to teach infield to safely get runner interference call?

[Chadb]

I manage a rec 16u team (technically, 13 to 16 Little League Seniors division). The teams in our league consist of some high school players, some travel ball players and some long time rec players. It is comparable to a C level travel team.

The instinct of so many infielders is to just stand back and avoid any contact with the runner in an attempt to field a batted ball and, because they never really look like they are going for the ball, interference is not called. I certainly don't want to teach them to plow into the runner, but is there a good way to teach them to make safe and "light" contact with the runner to make the interference call more obvious. Again, I don't want teach them to collide or go out of their way to make contact with the runner, I just want to make it obvious that they were interfered with in their reasonable and routine attempt to field the ball.

 

[Rolling Hard]

Just field the ball as if there is no runner. Easier said than done.

 

[flash277]

My DD was once playing 2B with a big runner on first, grounder hit to her, she moved in on it and stopped because there was going to be a collision, clearly interference by my favorite word in the rulebook, "hinder". Umpire didn't call it, and her coach is yelling at her to run into the runner, instead of discussing call with umpire. As an umpire now, I look to call it, and when I do, the coach usually comes out to say no contact, whereas I get to use my favorite word and send them on their way.I
I certainly wouldn't teach fielders to make contact with runners, but know the rule and have a discussion with the umpire. If they say contact is needed, tell them they are wrong (use hinder) and report them to TD. If it's a important championship game, file a protest because CONTACT US NOT NEEDED FOR INTERFERENCE!

 

[mmeece]

The instinct of so many infielders is to just stand back and avoid any contact with the runner in an attempt to field a batted ball and, because they never really look like they are going for the ball, interference is not called.

The best way to get the call is to look like they really DO want to field the ball where the runner is and/or that the runner prevents them from getting where they want to be. In order to do that the fielder needs to charge the ball or at least move towards the ball. I taught our infielders to move towards the ball, reach towards the ball, then visibly pull back if the runner was in their path. No contact made, but it is clear that the runner "hindered or impeded" them.

 

[The Man In Blue]

The best way to get the call is to look like they really DO want to field the ball where the runner is and/or that the runner prevents them from getting where they want to be. In order to do that the fielder needs to charge the ball or at least move towards the ball. I taught our infielders to move towards the ball, reach towards the ball, then visibly pull back if the runner was in their path. No contact made, but it is clear that the runner "hindered or impeded" them.

I really like this advice. We NEVER want to encourage contact (and doing so on my field will land you in hot water). The catch-22 is that we (umpires) need to know that the runner hindered the fielder. Unfortunately, a polite fielder is not a hindered fielder. The fielder (being prudent) choosing to check up to avoid a collision is not (necessarily) interference on the runner.

Perhaps we should call it that way more often to encourage this awareness, but we have to know that there was a play to be made, not that the coach taught his worst players to always check up.

 

[Chadb]

I really like this advice. We NEVER want to encourage contact (and doing so on my field will land you in hot water). The catch-22 is that we (umpires) need to know that the runner hindered the fielder. Unfortunately, a polite fielder is not a hindered fielder. The fielder (being prudent) choosing to check up to avoid a collision is not (necessarily) interference on the runner.

Perhaps we should call it that way more often to encourage this awareness, but we have to know that there was a play to be made, not that the coach taught his worst players to always check up.

Thanks for the great reply. I probably should've worded my question better and I definitely don't want to do anything that would result in an injury. Sounds like the way to go is to make an attempt and hold up to avoid collision.

Besides being a 16u coach, my sophomore daughter is starting to umpire in our 9 & 10 year old LL divison, so I'm on a deep dive journey to better understand the rules so I can explain them to her.

Thanks again.

 

[Agcy]

We’ve practiced it before. Instructed the runners to try to avoid contact, but to run in the way of the defense. Had some contact and only did it once, but it helped and no one got hurt.

 

[Agcy]

I really like this advice. We NEVER want to encourage contact (and doing so on my field will land you in hot water). The catch-22 is that we (umpires) need to know that the runner hindered the fielder. Unfortunately, a polite fielder is not a hindered fielder. The fielder (being prudent) choosing to check up to avoid a collision is not (necessarily) interference on the runner.

Perhaps we should call it that way more often to encourage this awareness, but we have to know that there was a play to be made, not that the coach taught his worst players to always check up.

I look at it kind of like obstruction. If the runner/defender has to alter their path, likely interference. To your point, kind of a safety thing.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I look at it kind of like obstruction. If the runner/defender has to alter their path, likely interference. To your point, kind of a safety thing.

I'll steal a piece of that because I think you may have just put that in the simplest terms:

HAS to = obstruction/interference
CHOOSES to = probably going to be nothing