Interference with a defensive player

[DonnieS]

Ground ball is hit towards short stop, as she runs forward to field it - but before she gets to the ball, the base runner at 2nd, collides with her, SS recovers, fields the ball - makes the throw to 1st and gets the out at 1st. One of the 3 blues is standing behind 3rd base - looking at the play. What is the proper call regarding the base runner at 2nd ?

[Comp]

Sounds like it should have been an interference call on the runner from 2nd. Immediate dead ball, runner is out for interference, batter/runner is awarded 1st base.

[DonnieS]

Sounds like it should have been an interference call on the runner from 2nd. Immediate dead ball, runner is out for interference, batter/runner is awarded 1st base.

What happened is the runner at 1st was called out, and the runner from 2nd got to 3rd. Fortunately, that runner did not score. I was taking pictures during the play and have a classic of the runner colliding with the short stop, I also turned and quickly got a picture of the blue that "blew" the call.

The next day, a ball is hit to ss, there is a runner at first, SS fielded the ball, steps on second, does not move to either direction and threw the ball directly at the runner coming to second - completely within the base line, hits her in the shoulder. The blue calls the runner out at second, no problem, force out, stepped on second, and then calls the batter/runner out at 1st because of interference on the baserunner who was hit in the shoulder by the ball thrown by the short stop.

[UmpSteve]

Good points.

There is one, and only one, possibility for the "no-call" in the first case to be the correct call. It is interference if a runner hinders a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball (and moving to the ball is generally considered "in the act"); but is NOT interference if the umpire realizes that the infielder isn't actually attempting to field the ball, instead is solely intending to make contact with the runner to get an interference call. That is obstruction, not interference.

Please understand; I'm not saying that is what happened here, or if the umpire simply blew the obvious call. But, we do know it is being taught, and at multiple levels, and it is something a good umpire should be aware of and looking to see if that is what happened. I have watched infielders create upper body contact fully upright while the ball rolled by her ankles, and defensive coaches arguing that is interference. I certainly suspect that the defensive coach came out and asked about the "no-call"; and that the word "protest" was available if the rule was so blatantly misapplied as you describe.

As to the later post, that, unfortunately, is the NCAA interpretation. Somehow the rules interpretor believes that the wording of the interference rule requires a "retired runner" (which is the designation the instant one is out) to disappear; if a reasonably accurate throw contacts that retired runner, the call is supposed to be automatic. It was the call in one (or several) high profile postseason games last year. I'm actually surprised more coaches don't teach THAT (hit the runner) as a defensive technique, like they do in the first case.

[DonnieS]

Thanks Steve, that helps, I will pass that along to the players involved. The first one was a blown play by the blue - no big deal, in our conference we are quite used to it. The player was most definitely going for the ball - and to prove it, she recovered from the collision and made the play at first.

In the second situation, that will help her to know what to do next time and that she needs to "disappear" - she is pretty good at that on various other occasions, hopefully she can do that here as well.

[Comp]

NCAA may or may not have taken the interpretation the runner needs to dissappear. I have heard this was presented at some NCAA clincis, but have never seen anything officially in writing.

No other rule set I am aware of has taken this stance. As long as the runner continues toward the base and does nothing intentional to interfere it is generally nothing. But, a runner veering off one way or the other and getting in the way could very well be an act of interference.