Running into the SS

[SnocatzDad]

Had this happen over the weekend.

Runner on 2nd, 2 outs, ground ball to SS. Runner from 2nd destroys SS (I think I saw feet in the air). Umpire calls runner out for interference, inning over.

Question #1
If it had been 1 or no outs instead of 2.
Is the batter/runner out if the umpire judges that the play at 1B would have been made by the defense without interference?

Question #2
As an umpire, if you feel that the play at 1B would have been close do you tend to

A. Call the batter/runner out because their interference is what caused this mess
B. Call the batter/runner safe because as an umpire you like to see outs/strikes not assume them

[PDad]

Please clarify what the SS was doing when the runner crashed into her - fielding the groundball, throwing or tagging the runner? It affects which rule is applicable.

[SoCalASABlue]

Agree with the previous poster that what the SS was doing when the runner collided with her matters. What does not matter (or I should say, should not matter) is the number of outs or any potential play at 1B.

What also is missing from the original post is whether the collision by the runner was intentional or not. Interference is supposed to be called whether intentional or unintentional, but if intentional a warning to - or even ejection of - the runner for unsportsmanlike conduct could be considered.

[wadeintothem]

The runner is out for interferring with a fielder making a play on a batted ball.

Number of outs is irrelevent
Where the play was going to be made is irrelevent in terms of an INT call.

Question 2 A&B have absolutely no foundation which would factor into a decision.

You could have crash INT on this play, depending on what is happening and/or separately unsportsmanlike conduct/malicous contact... alhought I doubt I would have that.

[MTR]

Had this happen over the weekend.

Runner on 2nd, 2 outs, ground ball to SS. Runner from 2nd destroys SS (I think I saw feet in the air). Umpire calls runner out for interference, inning over.

Question #1
If it had been 1 or no outs instead of 2.
Is the batter/runner out if the umpire judges that the play at 1B would have been made by the defense without interference?

Question #2
As an umpire, if you feel that the play at 1B would have been close do you tend to

A. Call the batter/runner out because their interference is what caused this mess
B. Call the batter/runner safe because as an umpire you like to see outs/strikes not assume them

Speaking ASA

ONLY if the umpire believed the INT was intentional for the purpose of stopping the defense from turning a double play could the umpire rule the immediate trailing runner out. (8.7.J.1-3.Effect)

[SnocatzDad]

SS was moving forward to field ground ball, runner didn't see her and collided. Ball rolled into the pile after collision.

The number of outs is germain to determining whether or not a ruling on the batter/runner is necessary.

My question was that since the interference caused the shortstop to not make the play at 1B which was makeable were both players out. Sounds like no from MTR's description because the interference wasn't done to prevent a double play.

[SoCalASABlue]

What I have been told in the clinics I have attended for SoCal ASA is that you can NEVER assume a double play would have been successful had there not been interference, intentional or uinintentional.

I don't doubt that there is something in the rule book that would allow such an assumption as described by MTR. However, it's hard enough to get some umpires to call illegal pitches, much less an intentional interference double play.

Therefore, had I been the Base Umpire I have a dead ball, R1 out for interference, and the batter-runner safe at first base.

[wadeintothem]

Well FTR, I didnt take any of the OP's proposals to be a discussion of intentional INT to break up a dp; especially #2 is more of a testament to an little odd thought process the OP believes umpires go through as they make a call.

Nonetheless, it is a good evolution of discussion from the original OP.

Question #1
If it had been 1 or no outs instead of 2.
Is the batter/runner out if the umpire judges that the play at 1B would have been made by the defense without interference?

Question #2
As an umpire, if you feel that the play at 1B would have been close do you tend to

A. Call the batter/runner out because their interference is what caused this mess
B. Call the batter/runner safe because as an umpire you like to see outs/strikes not assume them

[wadeintothem]

For the Record...

Hello... mcfly...

[SnocatzDad]

Well FTR, I didnt take any of the OP's proposals to be a discussion of intentional INT to break up a dp; especially #2 is more of a testament to an little odd thought process the OP believes umpires go through as they make a call.

Wade,

I don't think the below

Question #2
As an umpire, if you feel that the play at 1B would have been close do you tend to

A. Call the batter/runner out because their interference is what caused this mess
B. Call the batter/runner safe because as an umpire you like to see outs/strikes not assume them

Is significantly different from this

What I have been told in the clinics I have attended for SoCal ASA is that you can NEVER assume a double play would have been successful had there not been interference, intentional or uinintentional.

I'm not asking for thought process so much as what guidelines your trained on to make that determination because that makes it easier to figure out how/why certain calls get made.

From the above I would guess the principal is "B".