Runner Interference ?????

[default]

We had a play in a game the other day that is really making me question the ruling. Runner on second and grounder hit to third, ball hits off the 3B glove and is deflected toward shortstop. Our runner and shortstop collide and umpire (we only use one) calls our runner out for interference saying she did not give the SS the chance to make the play. Our runner was running a direct route from second to third and the shortstop was charging to make the play. I guess my question is, does interference apply here because one fielder (the 3B) already had a chance to field the ball?

I argued to no avail that one fielder already had a chance to field the ball, just like a runner being hit with a batted ball after it has passed a fielder. Does our runner have to change her path to avaoid the fielder?

 

[default]

Throw up the bretman signal. In my opinion the SS still has a right to make a play on the ball with out being interfiered with. Now when it is all said and done that is a judgment call for the umpire.

 

[default]

 

[default]

I am going to go out on a limb on this one. If the runner was running a straight path and collided with the SS, that tells me that the ball had not cleared the infield and thus the interference is the correct call. Runner must yeild (avoid intereferring with) an infielder attempting to make a play on the ball, it is the runners responsibility to avoid contact.

 

[default]

Not interference. Runner has the right to be in the baseline and the ball was already touched by an infielder. He blew the call.

 

[default]

Not interference. Runner has the right to be in the baseline and the ball was already touched by an infielder. He blew the call.

So under your interpretation, say a ball goes off the pitcher's glove and no other infielder has the right to attempt to make a play on the ball without being run into by a base runner?

Sorry, I think it needs to clear the infielders first. I would accept your interpretation for a ball that struck a runner after being touched by an infielder, but not when an infielder is still attempting to make a legitimate play on the ball.

 

[default]

The blue did make the wrong call only for the simple reason that the ball had already deflected off of the 3rd basemen which would negate the runner interference rule.

 

[default]

The blue did make the wrong call only for the simple reason that the ball had already deflected off of the 3rd basemen which would negate the runner interference rule.

I agree once it has been touched it should be fair play for all. JMO.

 

[default]

I'm gonna take a shot here..... IMO, I believe the call was correct. All fielders should have the right to the ball regardless of who has touched it. The runner must yield. The ball having touched and infielder wouldn't come into play unless the ball had of hit a runner.

 

[default]

I believe that only because 3rd baseman had touched the ball and had deflected it that the runner is now off the hook. Just because the ball passed an infielder does not mean the runner is ok, because the rule states and no other fielder has an chance to make a play.

 

[default]

Where is Bretman we need him to jump in....

 

[default]

The rule for collision with a fielder is a one step and reach, unless the ball is touched by another fielder... I not %100 sure but Bretman will set us all straight..

 

[default]

Not interference. Runner has the right to be in the baseline and the ball was already touched by an infielder. He blew the call.

I concur.

 

[default]

The runner is out by:

ASA Rule 8, sec 7, J (1) When a runner interferes: with a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or a foul fly ball

ASA Rule 8, sec 7, J (4) When a runner interferes: Intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected batted ball

There is a lot left to judgement as to whether this was intentional and if an out could have been registered. It all boils down to the runner having to avoid contact with the fielder making a play on the ball.

 

[default]

The runner is out by:

ASA Rule 8, sec 7, J (1) When a runner interferes: with a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or a foul fly ball

ASA Rule 8, sec 7, J (4) When a runner interferes: Intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected batted ball

There is a lot left to judgement as to whether this was intentional and if an out could have been registered. It all boils down to the runner having to avoid contact with the fielder making a play on the ball.

Talked to our league umpire tonight and he said once it was touched by another fielder 1st then it is not interference as long as there isnt any malicious intent to the collision.

 

[default]

Your league umpire needs to re-read his/her rule book, the fact that it was previously touched has absolutely no bearing. If the SS had an opportunty to record an out it is interference, doesn't have to be intentional.

Intentional - means the runner did not try to avoid the fielder as she was playing the ball, no malicious intent required. Now if the runner made an attempt to avoid the fielder I might just let it play out. Interference always takes presedence of obstruction according to the 2010 rule book.

 

[default]

Sounds like a bang-bang play though. Hard hit ball deflecting from 3B to SS? No way that can be legit interference.

 

[default]

Sounds like a bang-bang play though. Hard hit ball deflecting from 3B to SS? No way that can be legit interference.

Interference doesn't have to be by contact, it can be visual, audible, etc..

Granted if it was a rapidly developing play there was no way for it to be intentional, but then again it doesn't have to be intentional. I have been on both ends of this kind of call over the years and because so much of it is qualified by judgement, there is no way to truly argue it.

By the discription I would rule the runner out, she has to make every effort to avoid contact.

 

[default]

Sorry for the late reply. Every once in awhile, I have to actually leave the house for a game! This is the night my men's fastpitch team plays and pizza and beer is our usual after-game ritual.

Generally, runners can't interfere with fielders in the act of fielding a batted ball. But once the ball is actually touched by, or deflected off of a fielder, that changes things a bit.

The first thing that changes is that once the ball has been touched it relieves the runner from accidental interference with the ball. If the ball is deflected, then unavoidably hits the runner, the runner is not out. The runner can only be called out if she intentionally contacts the deflected ball.

The rules recognize the fact that a deflected ball can change its path suddenly and unpredictably, making it impossible for an otherwise legally advancing runner to dodge it. They also recognize that since the ball was touched, the fielder already had a chance to field it. So, on a deflected ball, the rules cut the runners some slack if the ball accidently hits them.

The play posted is different in that the runner made contact with a fielder, not the ball. But the rules give the runners a break on this one too, when the ball has been touched or deflected.

Here again, the rules recognize that the defense, by virtue of having touched the ball, had their initial, unimpeded chance to field it. Once the ball is deflected, it is likely that a different fielder will make a sudden course change to field it- a change that can be impossible for a runner to predict and might even be right into the runner's path. If the second fielder is unavoidably contacted by the runner, the runner is excused from an interference call. The only way the runner can be called for interference with a fielder on a deflected ball is if she had ample time to see the fielder and reasonably avoid her, but instead chose to intentionally interfere with her.

Once the ball is deflected, the runner is not totally excused from an interference call, but any interference with either the ball itself or a second fielder must be judged as intentional.

 

[default]

Thank you for all of the answers/guesses and thank you Bretman for giving me the correct rule. The reality is after the deflection, they both arrived in the same place at the same time - the shortstop making a heads up play and our runner trying to advance to third. The funny part is after arguing it, I chewed out my DD for it because there was no runner on first, so no reason to be moving to third yet. In my opinion, there was really no way the shortstop would have thrown out our runner and probably would not have thrown it at all. so I let my DD know that instead of first and second and one out, we now had only a runner on first and two outs.