Should anything have been called?

[default]

Here is some excellent footage from a game this weekend. The batter-runner does an very good job avoiding making contact with the fair bunted ball, however in so doing prevents the first baseman from making a play.

Should interference have been called? If not, what do you instruct the fielder to do in this situation?

Not trying to start any drama and no one was upset or anything. Kind of a freak situation that should make some interesting discussion.

Is This Interference? - YouTube

 

[default]

I do not think so because IMO the first baseman was not getting to the ball in the first place.

 

[default]

Looked to me like she checked up to avoid a collision.

 

[default]

Tony ... great video and question ... my opinion ... had contact been made between the first baseman and runner, it definitely would have been interference on the batter, or had the catcher got to the ball and hit the runner with a throw that would have been obstruction (?? - I always get obstruction and interference mixed up), but given there was no contact and the runner was seemingly just trying to avoid the ball and not to purposely interfere with the defense, I am thinking no call is right?

 

[default]

One of our parents raised it as an issue of the runner being out of the baseline, but I see slappers run halfway to the pitcher before running to first so I'm not really sure if that's a valid point.

 

[default]

You can tell that she is trying to avoid being hit by the ball, so she does that step pretty far left, but then as soon as she sees she can cross back between the ball and the first baseman, she does so ... and when she does that, the first baseman more or less stops to avoid the collision ... I am sure Bretman will teach us all something here ...

 

[default]

Very close play. This would be a tough call to make in "real time" without the benefit of multiple instant replays.

This call will boil down to the judgment of the umpire. If he judges that the runner impeded the fielder's chance to field the ball, then it would be interference. The first baseman definitely did have to check up and alter her path to the ball because of the runner's position and presence.

Some things you might have to consider...

- At the point when the first baseman did check up, was she at that point in the act of fielding the ball? She is still some distance away from it when she stops to go around the runner. It would be possible to judge that she was not yet in the act of fielding the ball and had no chance to make a play. This is a fine hair to split and a tough call to make in real time at full speed.

To me, it is close enough that the fielder should get the benefit of the doubt. She starts making a straight path to the ball and, if the runner wasn't where she was, would have probably had a play.

- It is possible that an umpire could judge that the catcher was the fielder with a better chance of fielding the ball. She was just as close, if not closer, than the first baseman.

If two fielders are trying to field a batted ball, then only one of them is afforded protection from an interference call- the one that the umpire judges had the most likely and reasonable chance to make the play. If the umpire were to judge that the catcher was most likely to make the play, then this would be obstruction by the first baseman.

Again, this is a fine hair to split in real time. When F3 checked up, F2 was pretty close to the ball and seemed to have a shot at it. Then for some reason, F2 seems to pull up before going all out for the ball. That might persuade an umpire to judge that she was not in the act of fielding the ball.

- Forget about the runner's baseline or the three-foot running lane. Neither have any bearing on this play.

The only time a runner is restricted to a certain baseline, or basepath, is when a fielder has the ball and is attempting to tag the runner. That's not the case here, so the runner isn't restricted to any given line and can take any path she chooses to the base.

The three-foot running lane only applies when there is a throw to first base, which doesn't apply here either.

- Interference does not require contact, nor does it require intent. Runners can, and often do, accidentally interfere and it's still interference just the same. The bottom line is that on a batted ball the fielder always has the right of way and the runner always has the responsibility to avoid hindering, impeding or disrupting the fielder's chance to field the ball.

 

[default]

(Almost hate to sugest this but...) It seems it would have been better for the 1st Baseman to continue and actually bump the runner this would have made the call clearly interference on the runner since she is impeding the fielder from making a play. I always thought the call was the same as charging in basketball in that contact had to be made to actually interfere.

 

[default]

So bretman ... interesting analysis and sharing of the rules, and I agree with you that it would be a very difficult call in real life ... but having had the benefit of seeing the play in slow motion, what would you call?

 

[default]

Hey my daughter may be the baserunner on first. Looks and runs like her anyway. I missed Sunday due to work so I missed this. But my opinion on this ( I may be bias since my daughter's team is batting ;&) but it looks like the catcher made more of a jump after the ball than the first base person did. Heard it was a good game though tied 0-0 till the last inning. Stingrays 01 will do really well this year for sure. I think they pitched 4-5 different girls on Saturday night alone so they have some major depth in pitching for sure.

 

[default]

Interference.

 

[default]

Saw a similar play to this last year and was NOT ruled Int. Ump said had 1B kept going for ball would have been, but since stopped she was no longer attempting to field the ball. Also said no throw to 1st so no Int. We were the offensive team so I thought a great call! LOL

Pure judgement by ump IMO.

 

[default]

Teach the fielder's to go straight for the ball and do not deviate. If contact happens, then so be it.

Oh yea, teach them to flop. jk.

Seriously though, teach the kids the rules of the game. Not just technique, but the actual rules. I always loved to have a kid(s) on the field that had a good understanding of the rules.

Here is an example....runner (HS age) is in a pickle between 1st and 2nd bases. SS has ball and is pushing the runner back towards 1st base however she (SS) is in a direct line from the runner to 2nd base. Runner allows the SS to push her most of the way back toward 1st base, keeping an eye on the SS who is closing on her. When the SS is about 5 feet from the runner, the SS throws the ball to the 1st baseman standing on 1st base. Runner immediately reverses direction and runs into the SS who did not have time to move out of the baseline. Umpire's arm goes up and our runner now continues to 2nd base. The runner does not reverse her course but continues to 2nd base. She is tagged as she approaches the base but.....their was obstruction. Runner is awarded 2nd base. The keys were to get the contact and then keep going toward 2nd base. This kid had a thorough understnding of the rules that cannot be communicated to her from a coach while this is happening in real time.

Man I love smart kids.

 

[default]

I agree wholeheartedly with teaching the rules and to aggressively go after the ball when they have the right-of-way. Fielders can be called for obstruction if they don't have the right-of-way and impede a runner.

When obstruction occurs in a rundown and the runner is put out between the 2 bases where it occurred, the umpire is supposed to award the base the runner would have reached if obstruction had not occurred. Continuing to the next base does not guarantee the umpire will award it, but the runner has a free shot at getting there safely due to a defensive miscue and, if not, can improve their chance of having it awarded if they're put out on a close play.

 

[default]

Teach the fielder to aggressively attack the ball. if contact is made then whatever the call is, so be it (being passive as a fielder always results in an advantage to the runner!) I've always instructed my fielders that any ball in play belongs to them so get it, don't worry about the runners! Also teach my base runners to avoid contact but if you can "interrupt" a fielders concentration while avoiding the fielder and the ball you do it.

 

[default]

Still anxiously awaiting Bretman's response to what he would call given the benefit of the slow motion replays ...

 

[default]

IMHO... You can see F3 pull up and almost brace for impact by turning her shoulder in. Interference would be my call, although I think F3 still had her had she made the throw to 1st. Would have been close.

 

[default]

Still anxiously awaiting Bretman's response to what he would call given the benefit of the slow motion replays ...

Having watched the video a few dozen times...I would lean toward calling it interference.

But I still say that it's really borderline and it might be a lot harder to call that with only one chance to see it, "live", at full speed. I couldn't be too hard on a guy if he didn't call it that, just based on a single "real-time" observation.

F3 pulls up so soon, and so far away from the bal and runner, that if you were watching this in real time it might sell you on the idea that she was not yet in the act of fielding the ball. Plus, F2 was pretty close to the ball and you might have thought that she had the better opportunity to field it.

It's probably interference, just not so blatantly cut and dried that I could beat a guy up for not calling it. (And you know that if I think an umpire blew a call, I'm not shy about saying so.) It's a LOT different to make a close call like this on the field, in the split second you have to see everything, than from watching a video over and over again.

 

[default]

The only time a runner is restricted to a certain baseline, or basepath, is when a fielder has the ball and is attempting to tag the runner. That's not the case here, so the runner isn't restricted to any given line and can take any path she chooses to the base.

The three-foot running lane only applies when there is a throw to first base, which doesn't apply here either.

- Interference does not require contact, nor does it require intent. Runners can, and often do, accidentally interfere and it's still interference just the same. The bottom line is that on a batted ball the fielder always has the right of way and the runner always has the responsibility to avoid hindering, impeding or disrupting the fielder's chance to field the ball.

Bretman... different play but an attempt to get the put-out at first... batter executes a bunted ball say 5'-10' in front of the plate near the first base line and is a fair ball... batter-runner takes a path to first similar to the video... and let's say the catcher fields the ball to the inside of the foul line and makes a throw to first and hits the runner with the thrown ball.... how is this called? I've seen it left as a 'no-call' and 'an out due to improper path if you willl' to the bag interfering with the throwing lane (if that even truly exists). In other words, should the batter-runner to first been in the 3' foot lane to not interfere with the throw. Please clarify in this situation if y'all don't mind the mini- hi-jack.

 

[default]

The three-foot running lane applies on this play. You don't always see this lane chalked out on the field, but all rule pertaining to it still apply.

The rule says that a batter-runner cannot be out of the lane AND interfere with the fielder at first base receiving the throw. If she does BOTH, then the ball is dead and she is out.

If the batter-runner runs out of the lane, but does not interfere with the fielder taking the throw, then it isn't interference. So the rule isn't really that she must be inside the lane. It's that if she is out of it, she's liable to be called for interference.

If the throw hits her while in the lane, then it's nothing- live ball, play on.

Keep in mind that the lane doesn't start until halfway (30 feet) up the foul line. If the batter-runner gets hit by the throw before that point, it's not interfence.

Going into a little bit more detail, if the B/R is hit by the throw, it's not interference unless it's what is commonly called "a quality throw". A quality throw is one that is directed at the fielder taking it at first and is reasonably close enough to the fielder that there would be some expectation of it being caught. If the catcher sails it over first base into right field, such that there was no possibility of a catch, that is not interference (because it wasn't a quality throw).

Along the same lines, if the catcher elects to not throw the ball, because the B/R was in the way, then that's not interference either. There must be a throw for it to be interference.