Batter makes a full swing and ball dribbles fair about 8 ft toward SS. Batter freezes in the box. The Catcher begins to run toward the ball to make a play. Batter then begins to run and runs into the catcher. 3rd Base picks up the ball and throws Batter Runner out at first.
Umpire calls Interference on the Catcher and Batter Runner is Safe at first.
Is this the correct call?
The Umpire Corner
Can't be the right call because if the catcher impeded the batter-runner it would be ostruction, not interference!
Confusion between the terms interference and obstruction aside...
- Did the catcher have a reasonable opportunity to field the batted ball and record an out?
- Was the ball hit such that F5 was the fielder most likely to have made the play anyway?
The answer to either of those questions could swing this call one way or the other.
Confusion between the terms interference and obstruction aside...
- Did the catcher have a reasonable opportunity to field the batted ball and record an out?
- Was the ball hit such that F5 was the fielder most likely to have made the play anyway?
The answer to either of those questions could swing this call one way or the other.
Click Here >>> To Visit The Glove Shop On-Line
-
Bretman - Posts: 316
- Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:50 pm
Bretman wrote:Can't be the right call because if the catcher impeded the batter-runner it would be ostruction, not interference!
Confusion between the terms interference and obstruction aside...
- Did the catcher have a reasonable opportunity to field the batted ball and record an out?
- Was the ball hit such that F5 was the fielder most likely to have made the play anyway?
The answer to either of those questions could swing this call one way or the other.
I guess I should also state that this was a RH Hitter.
It was not a bunt situation so F5 and F3 were playing normal. F2 would have made the play, but was run into by the BR after BR hesitated in the box. Third base coach "encouraged" the BR to "RUN!!! RUN!!!"
At this point F2 was in crossing the plate to get to the ball when BR ran into the F2. F5 picked up the ball and threw BR out before she was halfway to First Base.
And then the call...
- Merlin
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:21 pm
If F2 was the fielder most likely to have a play, then I would have to lean toward interference by the batter-runner (dead ball, B/R out).
A fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball has the right of way and must be allowed that opportunity without being impeded. In that respect, this wouldn't be any different than if the ball was hit to the shortstop and the runner ran into her.
The only way it would be obstruction against the defense would be if the umpire judged that F2 didn't have a chance to make a play or that another fielder was the one more likely to have made the play.
Now I'll complicate that a little and admit there may be a point that I'm not totally sure about.
ASA used to have an interpretation in their umpire manual- one that was derived from an existing interpretation in baseball- that said when the batter-runner is exiting the batter's box and the catcher is moving out in front of the plate to field a ball, the umpire could rule "incidental contact" if both players were "doing what they were supposed to be doing". It would be neither obstruction or interference- live ball, play on. This interpretation said, in effect, that due to the nature of the layout of the field, there are times when players crossing paths is inevitable.
Several years ago, ASA re-wrote their umpire manual and when they did they dropped that interpretation. This was around the same time that they modified their obstruction and interference rules, removing a player's "intent" from many of the rules. While they never "officially" rescinded that interpretation, I have seen it debated whether or not umpires can still fall back on that old "incidental contact" ruling. On this point, I am admittedly not 100% clear.
However, even under that "old" interpretation I think that you could still have interference on this play. By remaining in the batter's box and not immediately running, the batter was NOT "doing what she should be doing". Her hesitation, as the catcher established her position to field the ball, tipped the scale back to the favor of the defense.
Either way, you would really have only two choices here- incidental contact (no call) or interference by the batter-runner- unless the umpire judged that F2 did not have a play on the ball, then you could have obstruction.
A fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball has the right of way and must be allowed that opportunity without being impeded. In that respect, this wouldn't be any different than if the ball was hit to the shortstop and the runner ran into her.
The only way it would be obstruction against the defense would be if the umpire judged that F2 didn't have a chance to make a play or that another fielder was the one more likely to have made the play.
Now I'll complicate that a little and admit there may be a point that I'm not totally sure about.
ASA used to have an interpretation in their umpire manual- one that was derived from an existing interpretation in baseball- that said when the batter-runner is exiting the batter's box and the catcher is moving out in front of the plate to field a ball, the umpire could rule "incidental contact" if both players were "doing what they were supposed to be doing". It would be neither obstruction or interference- live ball, play on. This interpretation said, in effect, that due to the nature of the layout of the field, there are times when players crossing paths is inevitable.
Several years ago, ASA re-wrote their umpire manual and when they did they dropped that interpretation. This was around the same time that they modified their obstruction and interference rules, removing a player's "intent" from many of the rules. While they never "officially" rescinded that interpretation, I have seen it debated whether or not umpires can still fall back on that old "incidental contact" ruling. On this point, I am admittedly not 100% clear.
However, even under that "old" interpretation I think that you could still have interference on this play. By remaining in the batter's box and not immediately running, the batter was NOT "doing what she should be doing". Her hesitation, as the catcher established her position to field the ball, tipped the scale back to the favor of the defense.
Either way, you would really have only two choices here- incidental contact (no call) or interference by the batter-runner- unless the umpire judged that F2 did not have a play on the ball, then you could have obstruction.
Click Here >>> To Visit The Glove Shop On-Line
-
Bretman - Posts: 316
- Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:50 pm
Thanks for the explanation. This is good information.
Unfortunately F2 was called for obstruction and BR was awarded 1B. We stated our case, lost the call, but all is well that ends well... We won the game in ITB.
Thanks again!
Unfortunately F2 was called for obstruction and BR was awarded 1B. We stated our case, lost the call, but all is well that ends well... We won the game in ITB.
Thanks again!
- Merlin
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:21 pm
Bretman is referring to 8-8-c which states a runner is not out when one or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball and the runner comes in contact with the fielder who, in the umpires judgment could not make an out.
So the blue in this play ruled that F2 could not make an out, therefore ruled obstruction.
If that is how he judged it then he made a good/by rule call.
So the blue in this play ruled that F2 could not make an out, therefore ruled obstruction.
If that is how he judged it then he made a good/by rule call.
- vcblue
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:26 pm
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Main Menu
User Menu
Login
