Double interference?

[bman0303]

Here's the situation. Runner on first, one out. Batter ropes one over the left fielder's head. As the runner on first is heading towards third aimed at home, there is a collision at third base. The field umpire(still behind first) called double interference. One on the third baseman and one on the coach. Yes the coach was not in the box but definitely not close enough to make any contact with any player. Just seems odd that they can simultaneously interfere and that the coach being out of the hypothetical box can be called for interfering with no physical contact. I've been wrong before, but I think this guy made up his own rules on this one.

 

[GeneralsDad]

I would guess the collision with 3rd would be obstruction not interference.

 

[BretMan2]

All sorts of wrong here...

Why would the base umpire still be behind first base? He should be inside the diamond and trailing the batter-runner into second base.

Where is the plate umpire? He should have been in position to make a call on the lead runner coming into third.

Which participants collided? Was it the fielder and the coach, or the runner and the fielder? Where was the ball while all this was going on?

There's no such thing as "double interference". If the third base coach impeded the fielder from making a play (ie: actually prevented the opportunity for an out) then it would be interference and the runner would be out. The ball would be dead at that point, so no "second" interference would be possible.

If the fielder impeded the runner, without having the ball, then it would be obstruction. Obstruction is a different rule than interference, with different penalties and outcomes. If a runner is obstructed, the ball remains live and at the end of the play the runner can be awarded whichever base they would have reached had they not been obstructed.

I'm still not 100% clear on what exactly happened here and what the sequence was that it happened. But it's definitely NOT "double interference"!

 

[bman0303]

Base umpire did not move well. Out of position,clearly. Home plate umpire was waiting for the play at home. Which is where the play should have been. The ball was being relayed in. Probably interference and obstruction, not double interference. As I said, I've been wrong before.

 

[bman0303]

Can the third base coach get called without any physical contact made to anyone? I looked at the rules and I can't find anything on a coach getting called for interfering without physical contact with the players or some weird rule on requesting the ball.

 

[BretMan2]

Can the third base coach get called without any physical contact made to anyone? I looked at the rules and I can't find anything on a coach getting called for interfering without physical contact with the players or some weird rule on requesting the ball.

Contact is not a requirement of interference. For instance, if the fielder was going after the ball and had to run around the coach, it might be interference.

But I'm having a hard time picturing it here. For there to be interference, an actual attempt at making an out would need to be in progress. That would be the tag attempt on the runner coming into third. How could a coach be in the way of the relay throw? He'd have to be inside the infield!

If the fielder had to dodge the coach after the throw went past the base, following the collision, that isn't part of "making a play on the runner", so it wouldn't be interference.

 

[bman0303]

I think the umpire was trying to say that the runner going around third didn't have enough room to round it properly which made her go to the inside of the third base bag causing the collision. Third baseman was on top of the bag.

 

[BretMan2]

I think the umpire was trying to say that the runner going around third didn't have enough room to round it properly which made her go to the inside of the third base bag causing the collision. Third baseman was on top of the bag.

You mean that he thought the base coach was too close to the base, and that made the runner cut the base closer than she would have? If that's the case, then this umpire was definitely making stuff up!

If the fielder doesn't already have possession of the ball, the runner can take any path to the base that she chooses. It's the responsibility of the fielder to get out of her way. This is textbook obstruction by the defense.

The whole thing about the base coach...just when you think that you've heard it all, you'll hear something even crazier! There's absolutely no rule-based reason to call interference on the coach, unless he actually interfered with the fielder who was in the act of making a play. Seriously, if that's what this umpire "called", then that would rank right up there with some of the craziest calls I've ever heard!