Interference

[The Flush]

The ump called interference on this play. Do you agree?

[Jake Patterson]

No, it seemed everything arrived at the same time (I'm assuming he caught the ball).

Also, anything close in most leagues, requires the runner to avoid the catcher or slide.

[The Flush]

I stopped recording too soon, so it may be hard to tell that the catcher dropped the ball due to the collision. The ump ruled the runner should have avoided the catcher and called him out. Both kids were banged up, but were able to continue playing.

[Jake Patterson]

I stopped recording too soon, so it may be hard to tell that the catcher dropped the ball due to the collision. The ump ruled the runner should have avoided the catcher and called him out. Both kids were banged up, but were able to continue playing.

The ump got it right..

[bbrages]

The ump got it right..

I disagree... if you freeze the video a few frames before impact, the runner seems to be to be doing his best to avoid the catcher, but the catcher jumped in front of him.

Video is blurry, but I think the runner actually trips over the catcher's foot and that is the contact that leaves both players on the ground.

I don't see how you can expect the runner to slide that far up the base path.

[The Flush]

It was a tough call for the ump to make and he did not have the benefit of video. I was just curious as to how others saw it. This ump is every team's favorite because he is very fair and does a good job of explaining calls such as this one. We may not agree with every call he makes, but we definitely respect him. It actually benefited our team (my son was the one pitching BP to the other team). The other team might not have agreed with this call, but they did not argue it. He called one of our runners out for not sliding on a play that was really that close, but that is our league rule so we accept it and hoped that we learn from it.

[CoolHandLuke]

The play should have continued with a no-call. There is no obstruction or interference on that play. A base runner MUST avoid any fielder who is attempting to make a play on a BATTED ball (even if it's in the base line, the runner must run around to avoid). If the runner hinders the fielder, he is out whether the contact was intentional or not. This same rule does not apply to fielders fielding thrown balls. On a play where the fielder is throwing or receiving a thrown ball, the base runner is guilty of interference only if the contact was intentional. The umpire must deem that the runner intentionally made contact or hindered the fielder. In this case it seems pretty clear the contact was not intentional considering the catcher jumped into the runner and the runner didn't have time to avoid contact.

Tell Blue he missed that one.

[ctheusa]

he blew the call

[Jake Patterson]

I disagree... if you freeze the video a few frames before impact, the runner seems to be to be doing his best to avoid the catcher, but the catcher jumped in front of him.

Video is blurry, but I think the runner actually trips over the catcher's foot and that is the contact that leaves both players on the ground.

I don't see how you can expect the runner to slide that far up the base path.

zz - contact.PNG

..........

[bbrages]

Maybe the runner threw an elbow or something and the video is too blurry to make it out? Strange that the catcher is rolling on the ground in pain; the contact appears to be glancing and the runner seems to take the worst of it.

[bbrages]

I think this is a better freeze frame... I see the runner trying to avoid the catcher...

Capture.JPG

[Jake Patterson]

I thnk it's the same frame... Ask Jim Booth what he thinks..

[The Uncoach]

That's what a no-call looks like. You can't always avoid contact when a throw is off target.

[The Flush]

I expected a no call as well. It looked like the ump called out immediately, but before he realized the ball was dropped. He did not explain the interference until the players were attended to. Maybe the time delay (1-2 minutes) affected the call. I might show this to him and see what he says.

[songtitle]

There must be a ball, a runner, and a catcher. There was no ball.

Therefore, the catcher interfered when he has standing 6 feet up the baseline with no ball.

[The Flush]

The catcher was moving to catch the ball and was catching it at the time of the collision. I don't think that would be considered obstruction because he has the right to get to the ball. No call might have been the best call.

[songtitle]

The catcher was moving to catch the ball

As you say, he did not have the ball.

BTW, why is he 6 feet up the line?

he has the right to get to the ball

No he doesn't. He must already have the ball before the runner arrives. Period.

[CoolHandLuke]

There must be a ball, a runner, and a catcher. There was no ball.

Therefore, the catcher interfered when he has standing 6 feet up the baseline with no ball.

I think you're trying to argue that the catcher obstructed the base runner. But you have to remember that the catcher has a right to move to the ball to field it and is protected from the obstruction rule because he was "in the act of fielding the ball". Rules are clear that a fielder receiving a thrown ball is considered in the act of fielding the ball. It's not obstruction if the fielder is in the act of fielding or has possession of the ball. It looked like a bang-bang play as the ball arrived the same time the runner did.

In the end it's a judgement call for the ump, and I'm pretty certain most who know the rules would handle this as a no-call. Neither player committed a violation.

[CoolHandLuke]

No he doesn't. He must already have the ball before the runner arrives. Period.

Show me the rule that says a fielder must already have the ball before the runner arrives. Rules say "in the act of fielding", nowhere does it say must have possession of the ball before the runner arrives to avoid obstruction. It's either/or, in the act or possession. This kid was clearly in the act of fielding that throw. No one was at fault here, it was just a baseball play.

[songtitle]

Umpire Helper

The fielder may stand in the base path without the ball, IF, the throw is almost to him and he needs to be there to catch the ball. However, he may not actually block the base until he has possession of the ball. Until he has possession of the ball he must give the runner some way to get to the base.

There must be a ball, a runner, and a catcher.

Reminder: I don't claim to be an umpire, or know even 5% of the rules.

[songtitle]

..................... double post

[Chris O'Leary]

The catcher was moving to catch the ball and was catching it at the time of the collision. I don't think that would be considered obstruction because he has the right to get to the ball. No call might have been the best call.

The catcher catches the ball an instant before the collision and the act of trying to tag the baserunner causes the collision (the runners head ends up between the catcher's arms during the act of tagging).

[CoolHandLuke]

Umpire Helper The fielder may stand in the base path without the ball, IF, the throw is almost to him and he needs to be there to catch the ball. However, he may not actually block the base until he has possession of the ball. Until he has possession of the ball he must give the runner some way to get to the base.



There must be a ball, a runner, and a catcher.

Even by your own definition, the catcher has the right to move into the base path because he was in the act of catching the ball. The kid wasn't sitting on the plate blocking it, in fact he moved away from the plate to field the ball. You're wrong on this one. Here is the actual rule, OBR 2.00:

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in
flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he
may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to
whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball.

[songtitle]

There was no intent to interfere, but that doesn't matter (within reason).

Then why was he 6 feet up the baseline? This usually draws the obstruction call.

/I am the last person that should be arguing about rules. Where are the umps?

[jbooth]

The ump called interference on this play. Do you agree?

I assume you're talking about the play at the plate.

That's a perfect example of a "that's nothing" no call, collision. The ball and runner arrived at almost the same time. The runner was simply trying to get to the plate, and the catcher needed to move where he did, to catch the ball.

The runner has a right to try to get to the base and provided he does nothing intentional and unnecessary to the fielder, it is not interference.

The catcher has a right to try to catch the ball, and a fielder is "in the act of fielding" and it is NOT obstruction, if, his block of the base, is a fluid, continuous result of his effort to glove the ball. Separate, discontinuous movement, whose sole purpose is to block the base, is obstruction.

The right call here is; nothing, other than out or safe on the tag attempt.