Runner interference or clean

[flash277]

I would say it is the runners responsibility to avoid contact and interference. It is the SS responsibility to make a play on the ball. "Well the left shoelace partially blocked the vision of the SS." Is that where we are at? Come up and make the play. If the SS is playing behind the running lane it is going to be difficult to get an interference call from me.

I will mention the interference rule in general has been changed over the years to promote safety.


What is the runner's options? I cant make contact, I cant get close, I cant block their vision....IMO we have went too far. "Well the noise of the footsteps hindered my ability to make the play and the ball went thru my legs"

It is a tough call for sure. Anyway that is my view. I would like to hear others take on it.

Are there umpires out there calling interference on runners running in front of the SS playing behind the runner based on visual impairment?

So in my example you would not call interference? Would you advise the SS to complete that charge in for the ball by running into the fielder?

 

[kennykozman!!]

So in my example you would not call interference? Would you advise the SS to complete that charge in for the ball by running into the fielder?

Yes as a coach I would advise all the infielders to charge the ball. I am not going to tell them to stay back because of maybe there might be contact.


If in the example the SS stays back and the baserunner runs to 3rd with no contact and no proximity I am not calling interference.

Do you disagree? I am curious.

 

[flash277]

Hmm I thought my example was clear. The SS was charging in then came to a stop because she was going to collide with the runner. I called it since she was hindered by the runner in not completing her play on the ball.

 

[kennykozman!!]

Some rule sets say the runner has to vacate the space needed to make a play. So in your example with the SS charging I could agree there may be interference. Again I think proximity comes into play. A near miss with the SS pulling up? Sure.

 

[marriard]

Hmm I thought my example was clear. The SS was charging in then came to a stop because she was going to collide with the runner. I called it since she was hindered by the runner in not completing her play on the ball.

That is 100% correct. If the fielder stops their movemrnt to field the ball because of the runner, interference.

 

[PapaBear]

Trying to understand a call and I know you all will give me the right answer. Runner on 1 and 2. Batter hits ball towards ss which is going to make play on ball. Runner on second runs in front of and almost runs over ss. SS was making play on ball. She avoids collision and ballrolls in outfield. Two runs score. Should there been interference called on runner or not. Thanks

Teach the SS to get the cheap out by sticking her glove/making contact with the runner.

 

[radness]

The difficulty isn't the rule itself, rather the interpretations of distinguishing what hindered is.
Perhaps contact would make the call obvious.
But without contact its an observational guess.
And imo starts blurring the line of umpire intrusion.
That said it is what it is.

Reminds me to say
Always finish the play!
(Follow through with the attempt to get to the ball)

 

[CloudofDust]

We had a scrimmage Thursday. B2 hits GB to F4. R1 on 1B passes in front of F4 but pauses directly in front of F4 to make sure the ball does not hit her (R1). I had it as R1 is out for the Int, but I know It was a HTBT play. In general, though, if you have a runner that pauses (even if not intentionally) in front of the fielder, would you be more inclined to call the Int then?

Hard to follow, but I think you sunk my battleship.

 

[RIZZARIJOE]

I have seen this multiple times from the C position. SS stays back, runner going to 3rd runs in front, no contact, not even close to contact and the coach wants interference. You cannot have interference when the SS is 5 feet in back of the runner with no contact. Not happening.

I would respectfully disagree. As long as the runner interfered with or impeded the ss it’s interference. That can be as innocuous as just stopping, frozen, in front of the SS. It’s tough, because most runners are stopping To try and avoid the interference. If their conduct obscures the vision of the fielder, it’s interference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kennykozman!!]

I would respectfully disagree. As long as the runner interfered with or impeded the ss it’s interference. That can be as innocuous as just stopping, frozen, in front of the SS. It’s tough, because most runners are stopping To try and avoid the interference. If their conduct obscures the vision of the fielder, it’s interference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the response. What if the runner doesn't stop and goes straight to 3rd and the SS is playing behind ? Same call because of vision impairment?

I am curious. Obviously there are umpires out there calling this interference. This is great discussion for winter meetings!