Offensive interference

[slagothar]

I think this one is pretty obvious, but.....

2 outs, runners on first and second. Batter pops up to second baseman, second baseman misses ball; after ball hits ground, runner from first collides with second baseman. Umpire calls dead ball, offensive interference, runner out, end of inning.

Of course, our coach complains loudly, but I think they got the call correct. Thoughts?

 

[The Man In Blue]

This is actually pretty interesting ... this part may make a difference: the fielder missed the fly ball or the fielder dropped the fly ball?

Interference rules protect a defensive player making an initial play and slightly beyond ...
USSSA Rule 3 Definitions:
INITIAL PLAY. A fielder is considered to be making an initial play on a fair batted ball, a ball which could become fair or a foul fly ball when the fielder has a reasonable chance to gain control of a ground ball that no other fielder (except the pitcher) has touched or a reasonable chance to catch the ball in flight after it touches another fielder. The fielder is still considered to be making an initial play if the fielder fails to gain control of the batted ground ball and is within a step and a reach (in any direction) of the spot of the initial play.

One could attempt to make an argument that once the fly ball was dropped, the fielder was still within a step and a reach and thus was still attempting the initial play. However, this portion of the rule specifically refers to a fielder making an initial play on a batted ground ball OR a fly ball.

As written, the interference rule does not seem to apply in the "transition time" when a dropped fly ball becomes a ground ball. The fly ball was the initial play and the protection does not carry over to a fielder scampering to recover the dropped ball. However, I have a hard time justifying to myself that the spirit of the rule should not be applied.

While I do not want to extend any unwarranted protection to the fielder, I also would have a very hard time convincing myself to wave off the protection if the fielder had not moved from the spot where they were attempting the catch or was still within a step and a reach when she was crashed into. In that case, I would have to go with the spirit of the rule and protect the fielder.

Now, had the fielder moved into the path of the runner while chasing the dropped ball beyond the "step and a reach" provision , the correct call is obstruction and protection goes to the runner.

 

[Big Daddy Michigan]

If you misjudge the pop up and it lands in front of you you may be in position to field the one hopper or grounder. I think you kind of need to see this play.

 

[slagothar]

It was a pretty "bang-bang" play. Fielder was in direct line ("baseline") between first and second base. fielder was set up to catch the ball and stationary; my take is that the impending collision with the runner affected her attempt at catching the pop up. She had plenty of time to pick up ball (landed at her feet) and throw out the BR.

Our coach was (incorrectly, IMO) complaining to the umps that the fielder was not allowed to block the "baseline".

 

[Agcy]

It was a pretty "bang-bang" play. Fielder was in direct line ("baseline") between first and second base. fielder was set up to catch the ball and stationary; my take is that the impending collision with the runner affected her attempt at catching the pop up. She had plenty of time to pick up ball (landed at her feet) and throw out the BR.

Our coach was (incorrectly, IMO) complaining to the umps that the fielder was not allowed to block the "baseline".

What age group? I agree with you that is sounds like the coach doesn't know the rules - yet. Because he had it exactly backwards - the runner can't run into the fielder (on the initial play on the ball) - not the other way around.

Tell him the baseline doesn't exist until the defense is making a play on said runner and see what he thinks.

 

[slagothar]

What age group? I agree with you that is sounds like the coach doesn't know the rules - yet. Because he had it exactly backwards - the runner can't run into the fielder - not the other way around. Tell him the baseline doesn't exist until the defense is making a play on said runner and see what he thinks.

Sadly, it is 16U.....that is why I put "baseline" in quotes

 

[The Man In Blue]

It was a pretty "bang-bang" play. Fielder was in direct line ("baseline") between first and second base. fielder was set up to catch the ball and stationary; my take is that the impending collision with the runner affected her attempt at catching the pop up. She had plenty of time to pick up ball (landed at her feet) and throw out the BR.

Our coach was (incorrectly, IMO) complaining to the umps that the fielder was not allowed to block the "baseline".

In that case, the runner running at the fielder is enough to (potentially) judge it interference. Since the fielder is making an initial play, the runner is required to give clearance. Her path is irrelevant.

*grumble*grumble*basepath*baseline*grumble*grumble*

A fielder may be in between the runner and the base the runner is advancing to if:

• the fielder is AT THAT MOMENT in possession of the ball.
• the fielder is making an initial play (see above) on a batted ball.
• Some rule sets will make an exception for a throw pulling a fielder across a safety base.

A runner's base path (often used interchangeably but incorrectly with base line, even in the rule book) is the direct line between the runner and the base the runner is headed to. By physics, this is an incorrect description as the runner's path can be (and often is) an arc, not a direct line. Either way, the only time the base path matters is when a fielder is in it illegally AND/OR the moment a tag is being attempted.