Interference call

[default]

Yesterday at a tournament we had bases loaded, the batter hit a ball to the short stop who was playing in front of the base line, the ss went to field the ball, she backed up into the base line and the girl running from second to third ran into her, the runner was called out due to interference. Was this the correct call?

 

[default]

OUT

 

[default]

OUT

 

[default]

OUT

 

[default]

Ok obviously everyone agrees on this but can you explain it to me, the girl on second only ran into the ss because the ss was playing in front of the line and instead of charging the ball she stepped backwards twice to field ball. I could understand this call if it happened in the base line and the runner blocked the fielder, this call did not seem correct to me because the fielder was not charging the ball. This happened at the Tune-up yesterday, the field ump called our girl out. The home plate ump would not say a word on the call. Thanks all for your answers.

 

[default]

We can not say it LOUD (or large) enough OUT!!!!!!!

 

[default]

Think of it this way: the fielder has the "right of way". The base runner must yield to the fielder or be called out for interference.

 

[default]

I do understand that the fielder has the right of way our girl was behind the fielder and at the time of the collision our girl was jumping to the side to get out of the way that was why we couldn't understand the interference call. The ss actually fielded the ball, it obviously doesn't matter now we were just wondering for the future. Thanks

 

[default]

Whats not to understand, there was a "collision", one has the "right of way" the other doesn't and gets thrown out. Like a car accident, one is going to get a ticket. Runners have to Stop and stay clear of the fielder regardless of where she is fielding the ball. A runner can't even run in front of a fielder, jumping or stepping over a ground ball with-out getting thrown out.

Keep checking back, you will get some technical responses from the more knowledgeable OFC'ers.

 

[default]

OK thanks for the info

 

[default]

Remember that like many of the other rules, Interference has many Judgement related components to it. Say a runner runs from one base to another avoiding a batted ball, doesn't collide with the fielder or contact the ball, but in the umpires judgement she caused the fielder to be distracted from fielding the ball; Interference.

Interference doesn't have to be physical either. Screaming as a player goes to field a ball can also be deemed as interference. There was an example in another thread where a opposing coach screamed "time" right as the pitcher started her wind-up to cause her to essentially balk. Interference

 

[default]

some infielders work that backinforth motion to the tee for the easy out, But watch out sometimes those runners can be a freight train! wooo wooo! ;D

 

[default]

Thanks everyone for all the input. I did actually read the thread about the coach yelling time, pretty good info on this forum. Thanks for the laugh just kicking

 

[default]

Did anyone see the game in the College World Series where the shortstop tried to field a ball but missed, then instead of reaching for the ball, she reached out and touched the runner to get an interference call? Tricky Tricky

 

[default]

On the original play posted by sbplaya...

As long as the umpire judges that the path the fielder was taking to the ball was part of her legitimate attempt to field it (and that the ball was in the vicinity to be fielded), then the fielder is free to take any path she chooses.

On this one, maybe your runner just caught a bad break. She might have been TRYING to go around the fielder, but she just didn't go far enough. Runner interference can be accidental and the fielder's protection on a batted ball is nearly absolute.

I've had to explain this call to a coach before and the closest thing I can come up with is- sometimes that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Or, better yet for softball, the way the ball bounces. The game is filled with odd bounces and rotten breaks and this interference call is one of them.

I didn't see the college game you mentioned. Did the umpire's actually call interference, or did they not fall for F6's acting routine?

A fielder might purposely move into a runner to in an attempt to "draw" an interference call (sort of like a guard drawing a charging foul in basketball). But if the umpire judges the move to not have been a legitimate part of her efforts to field the ball, the contact can be ignored- or, possibly, even become an obstruction call against the defense!

 

[default]

The umpire called it interference, and I was waiting for the announcer to say that it should have been obstruction, but instead the announcer reinforced the umpire's call by saying something like....the fielder knew that if she could get contact with the runner she could still get the out.

At this point the ball was a little behind the fielder, but the fielder was reaching forward to touch the runner.

 

[default]

And the academy award goes to...that shortstop!

Hard to say what the umpire saw or judged. Maybe he ruled the interference because the runner's close proximity to the fielder distracted her or screened her from the ball on the initial play. The secondary touch by the fielder may have been moot. That is entirely possible- but impossible to know without being able to read the umpire's mind or hear his own explanation of what he ruled.

One big caution: Be very, very leery of any rule explanations given by "talking heads" television announcers! They are notorious for mangling rule interpretations. To say that, "The fielder knew that if she could get contact with the runner she could still get the out" is a perfect example.

First, I'm always curious just exactly how an announcer "knows" what a player is thinking or why she did what she did. Making such statements is passing off the announcers opinion and speculation as fact.

Secondly, that statement implies that contact is necessary for an interference call. It is not. Interference is entirely possible on this play minus any contact and the fielder's "acting job" may not have had anything to do with the call.