Well, that umpire in that story wasn't me! ?
I don't really know if any of the OFC regulars participated in or saw any of my games at Berliner. All of the ones I met were before, between or after games. I was on diamond #9 (16U) for Saturday pool play and #13 (12U) the first and third games of Sunday's brackets.
On to the obstruction/interference...
- I hope that your umpire really called "interference" on the runner, not "obstruction". Interference is an offensive infraction, obstruction is an infraction by the defense.
- Contact, while possibly a sign of obstruction or interference, is not a requirement.
- Crush1 pretty much nails it. And SBFamily is right about the judgment part.
The fielder has the absolute right-of-way when fielding a batted ball. The runner is obligated to avoid interfering with her. She has the option of checking-up, stopping or taking any path she chooses to go around the fielder.
If the path the runner chooses puts her in close enough proximity to the fielder that her presense there distracts, impedes or confuses the fielder, that can be interference- even without contact.
And it's all umpire judgment. Right off the top of my head, I can think of several different ways this scenario can play out. (That's a lot of typing! ?:-/)
* For all of these examples, assume a runner on first (R1). Batted ball to F4:
PLAY #1) Fielder is well-back of the runner (maybe behind the base line) stopped, stationary and waiting for the ball (sharply hit). Runner is going in a straight line to second, several feet ahead of the fielder- far enough away that her presence should not be a distraction.
She might jump over the ball, or come close to it's path, but as long is she is running straight ahead in a normal manner this probably should not be interference.
PLAY #2) Fielder is playing in, near baseline. Batted ball is a slow roller that F4 must charge. R1's path crosses the path of the approaching fielder, causing the fielder to stop, or pull-up, before she reahes the ball.
That can be interference- even without contact. If the runner prevents the fielder from taking her chosen path to the ball (and there was an actual play on the ball to be made), then the likely call is interference.
PLAY #3) Fielder in act of fielding ball. Runner runs in front of her stepping inches away from her glove, which is down on the ground. The runner's close proximity causes the fielder to turn her head, or the runner's body screens the fielder's vision and view of the ball.
Can be ruled as interference.
PLAY #4) Runner stops in baseline, positioning herself in front of fielder. Possibly makes several "shuffle steps" or waves her arms in a manner that, while designed to look like efforts to avoid the oncoming ball, the umpire judges were actually an effort to distract the fielder.
That's interference.
PLAY #5) Runner positions herself close to the fielder and screams, "MINE! I GOT IT, I GOT IT!" LOOK OUT!!!.
That can be verbal interference.
You could probably come up with a few more (including, the ever-popular "runner slams into fielder as she is fielding the ball"
. The point is that beyond the written rule, these calls require a good deal of umpire judgment. there are some grey areas where a call might go either way. It all depends on what the umpire sees and how he judges it (and, to a large extent, it depends on how much experience the umpire has had in making these kind of split-second calls). ? ?