EmptyMessage board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 3 members: Mickey Zarr, db, washoedoug; 14 anonymousDiscussion: offensive interference
| Posted | Discussion |
| Jan. 26 roco36 5 posts | Today I was playing the short field position (eleventh player on the team) and standing close to second base on the third base side. A base runner was on second, so I was right behind him but to his side. A batted ball came directly at me and as I was positioning myself to field it, the runner left the base and was directly in front of me, blocking my entire vision of the bouncing ball. I know that runners can run in front of defensive positioned fielders, e.g., a shortstop, when there is separation between the two. In my case the runner and I were very close to one another. I did not see the ball at all as it rolled by the two of us. Should that be called offensive interference? |
| Jan. 26 B.J. 1108 posts | roco36.. it's a tough call without actually seeing the play.. usually interference would only be called if the runner purposely stopped in front of you to block your vision.. your description of the play though tells me the runner was doing what he was suppose to do.. he was in the base path and trying to advance.. no call play on |
| Jan. 26 SSUSA Staff 3505 posts | Roco36 ... Not necessarily! The first thing that must be judged by the ump is whether or not the fielder was interfered with. Then, if it is a batted ball, it makes no difference whether interference was intentional or not, the runner is out. The runner must avoid a fielder attempting to field a BATTED ball, but if the fielder is not in the base path, the runner may continue to run in the base path. Simply running in the path in a straight line from base to base, without doing anything out of the ordinary, is not interference. Just because the ball may pass near or even through the runner's legs, does not constitute interference by the runner. The runner must avoid the fielder, and the ball. Running in the path is not interference, in and of itself. If the fielder is in the base path attempting to field a BATTED ball, or moves into the path to attempt to field it, the runner must avoid the fielder by running out of the path, and/or avoiding the fielder. If the fielder is not in the base path, but the runner intentionally stops unnecessarily or takes actions that are, in the ump's judgment, intent to interfere, and interference does occur, then the runner is out. It is not a good judgment to rule interference just because the play became difficult, simply because the runner and ball got close to one another. What did your umpire rule/fail to rule? |
| Jan. 27 roco36 5 posts | There was no ruling by a somewhat inexperienced umpire. He let the play stand. It was pivotal in the outcome of he game and that is why I submitted the question. Once agin, thanks for your input. |
| Jan. 27 SSUSA Staff 3505 posts | Roco36 ... As B.J. inferred, it's tough to make a "paper ruling" not having seen the play unfold ... However, the (limited) facts you stated do not appear to indicate that there was interference ... The base runner was in the base line, and you weren't ... There was no base runner/defender contact ... The only remaining question is whether or not the base runner did anything else, such as stop or otherwise behave to confuse you, rather than proceeding, at whatever speed, toward third ... Again, it's a judgment call not subject to appeal ... Your ump either (unwittingly or brilliantly) made the proper non-call OR completely missed it! ... Who knows? |
