USSSA Interference/Obstruction

[rhound50]

I wasn't involved in the play but saw the video on facebook and I was interested in what is the correct ruling. Batter hits a little pop up between 1b and home plate that lands fair in front of the 1b. The runner is running up the line, the catcher is also running up the line and is pretty much in stride with the runner on the BR right. The ball bounces and spins right in front of the runner who crashes into the fielder as he trying to field the ball. This would be pretty standard interference but with the catcher running next to the BR, the BR has nowhere to go. Seems like we have both interference on the BR and obstruction on the catcher? Whats the call?

Also clarification, an umpire I know claims that a fielder has to be camped or in fielding position in order for it to be interference. I was under the impression that the fielder has the priority to field a batted ball and any normal contact between the BR and fielder that keeps the fielder from fielding a ball is interference.

 

[BretMan]

Keeping in mind that interference and obstruction are almost always "had to be there to see it" calls...this sounds like interference on the runner.

The catcher being near the runner could POTENTIALLY be obstruction- if the catcher actually impeded the runner in some way. Just saying that the runner might have maybe been impeded isn't quite a good enough standard for me.

Did the runner actually try to swerve, but was blocked? I'd have to see something to convince me that the runner was actually impeded, not just had the potential to be impeded.

 

[rhound50]

Keeping in mind that interference and obstruction are almost always "had to be there to see it" calls...this sounds like interference on the runner.

The catcher being near the runner could POTENTIALLY be obstruction- if the catcher actually impeded the runner in some way. Just saying that the runner might have maybe been impeded isn't quite a good enough standard for me.

Did the runner actually try to swerve, but was blocked? I'd have to see something to convince me that the runner was actually impeded, not just had the potential to be impeded.

The runner was running up the first baseline the ball landed and if it had bounced straight back up he would have run right past it. The problem is the ball had some funny spin on it so it spun in front of the runner. The fielder moved in front of the br to follow the ball and right in front of the BR. It is definaltly interference on the BR but if there is also obstruction on the catcher what is the outcome?

 

[smoke]

Was the batter in the running lane?? Was the ball in fair territory??
SMOKE

 

[Dogue]

Was the batter in the running lane?? Was the ball in fair territory??
SMOKE

That's what I'm thinking, otherwise it's a foul ball and play ends. If fair, runner was inside the line and should be out.

 

[ojs43]

The runner is slow too.

Without seeing it, batter would be out based on the description.

 

[MaverickAH]

The runner was running up the first baseline the ball landed and if it had bounced straight back up he would have run right past it. The problem is the ball had some funny spin on it so it spun in front of the runner. The fielder moved in front of the br to follow the ball and right in front of the BR. It is definaltly interference on the BR but if there is also obstruction on the catcher what is the outcome?

I don't do U-Trip so I'm not positive that they treat this type of play the same. I would think that they do.

Interference always takes precedent over obstruction. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid interfering with a defensive player's ability to make a play on a batted ball. There is no such thing as incidental contact on this type of play. Also, there is no absolute need for contact to be made.

Very often, on this type of play, you may also have the P and/or the 1B coming to also make a play on the ball. An umpire can only protect 1 defensive player. At the point that they make that determination, the other defensive players are subject for an obstruction call.

• If a runner prevents a protected defensive player from making a play on a batted ball, INTERFERENCE
• If an unprotected defensive player impedes a runner, OBSTRUCTION

 

[BretMan]

The three-foot running lane is irrelevant to this play. That only applies on a throw to first base. Runner can run anywhere he wants to on this play.

I think that the only way I'd call this obstruction is if I saw the runner try to avoid the fielder, but the catcher being where he was impeded him to the point where it caused him to run into the fielder. In other words, if the runner was trying to avoid the fielder but the catcher forced him into the fielder- if that makes sense.

Yes, interference takes precedence over obstruction. But if the obstruction CAUSED the interference, I'm not enforcing the interference. I'm not sure that there's a rule reference or case play for that. This would be my ruling as an application of "a point not covered by the rules".

Think of it this way: What if the catcher had shoved the runner into the fielder? Would you punish the runner for that? This is kind of the same concept of if a fielder pushes a runner off a base then tags him. You don't enforce the out. If the obstruction caused the interference, you don't enforce the interference.

 

[irishmafia]

Also clarification, an umpire I know claims that a fielder has to be camped or in fielding position in order for it to be interference. I was under the impression that the fielder has the priority to field a batted ball and any normal contact between the BR and fielder that keeps the fielder from fielding a ball is interference.

That would have to be exclusive to USSSA (and I don't believe it is) as no other rule set of which I am aware places such a parameter on the defense

 

[BretMan]

Oh, yeah! I forgot that you had a second question.

What that umpire told you- that's BS.

 

[MaverickAH]

The three-foot running lane is irrelevant to this play. That only applies on a throw to first base. Runner can run anywhere he wants to on this play.

I think that the only way I'd call this obstruction is if I saw the runner try to avoid the fielder, but the catcher being where he was impeded him to the point where it caused him to run into the fielder. In other words, if the runner was trying to avoid the fielder but the catcher forced him into the fielder- if that makes sense.

Yes, interference takes precedence over obstruction. But if the obstruction CAUSED the interference, I'm not enforcing the interference. I'm not sure that there's a rule reference or case play for that. This would be my ruling as an application of "a point not covered by the rules".

Think of it this way: What if the catcher had shoved the runner into the fielder? Would you punish the runner for that? This is kind of the same concept of if a fielder pushes a runner off a base then tags him. You don't enforce the out. If the obstruction caused the interference, you don't enforce the interference.

I covered that type of situation by specifying "protected" or "unprotected". In your example, the answer is dependent on who you decided to protect. The catcher or the other fielder? If, in your judgement, the other fielder had the right to the ball, your call should be obstruction on the catcher since that action clearly occurred first.

 

[BretMan]

Okay. My assumption was that F3 was the protected fielder because he was, in fact, the one who fielded the ball. So my answer was based on that assumption.

 

[EAJuggalo]

Assuming all facts are as represented and it was F3 that fielded the ball. I would have OBS on F2 if the ball was still fair and I thought the runner didn't move over because of them. If the ball was foul when contact took place it's a null point and a foul ball. If the BR could still have moved to avoid contact than I have INT on BR, BR out and all runners go back to where they were.

What the umpire told you is a big crock of crap. The fielder has an absolute right to field a batted ball and may not be interfered with for any reason.