Dover vs New Philadelphia - Runner's Interference for winning run?
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
Explain your point of view have watched the reply twice , the ball is off the pitcher's glove, also the runner ran behind the SS which would also make it a non interference play as she gave the fielder a chance at the ball.
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
The ball was hit up the middle and the shortstop took a step to her left. The ball was quickly deflected by the pitcher and the SS attempted to return to her right as the runner passed behind her. The SS spun around and missed the ball. It looked like the runner may have contacted the SS and spun her around as the ball was passing by. It is impossible to see on the video if the runner made contact with the SS.
If there was contact, it would be interference. If no contact, no interference.
Bobcatrule
New member
I was there and there was definitely contact between the runner and the fielder as the fielder was getting ready to field the ball. You are absolutely right about the replays, couldn't see the play from them. The only thing you do see is the runner stopping at 3rd, putting both her hands on her head and knowing she made a mistake. There are two pictures circulating on the internet that shows the contact but I was told that the umpire that made the call said there was contact but it happened after the ball was by the SS, which wasn't true.
Attachments
BigTimeSportsOh
Active member
You can watch the entire game for Free on the Big Time Sports YouTube Channel. Be sure to click subscribe
Someone else can chime in, but my understanding of the rule and what you've described is it's a no call. Once the ball hit the pitcher's glove, there's been a chance to field the ball, so there wouldn't be interference on the runner. Bigger question (I don't know the answer) is if it'd be obstruction on the SS, if the runner would have been tagged out.
RULE 2: DEFINITIONS
2-46-3
Initial play - A fielder is considered to be making an initial play on a fair batted ball when the fielder:
a. Has a reasonable chance to gain control of a ground ball that no other fielder (except the pitcher) has touched. (8-6-10a)
b. Has a reasonable chance to catch the ball in flight or catch the ball in flight after it touches another fielder.
c. Fails to gain control of the batted ball and is within a step and a reach (in any direction) of the spot of the initial contact.
2-31-1
Interference is an act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder [...]
THE RUNNER IS OUT
8-6-10 The runner interferes:
a. with a fielder attempting to make the initial play on a fair batted ball. (2-46)
[...]
Per 2-31-1, Impede/hinder are the key words here. Therefore, contact is not required for interference. For example, if a runner going from 2nd to 3rd on a fair batted ball prevents a shortstop who is trying to charge in on a ground ball, having to stop her charge because of the runner, the fielder is therefore hindered and the runner is subject to an interference call, even without any contact. Good coaches tell their runners to run behind the fielder to prevent an interference call.
It is important to note that contact does not automatically mean interference as a result of what is considered an initial play from 2-46-3.
This is 100% a judgement call an umpire makes based on the information he has. Based on the shortstop's positioning in relation to the ball, 2-46-3a doesn't apply as she doesn't have a reasonable chance to gain control of a ground ball (it's behind her as it passes her). The initial contact was made by the pitcher, so 2-46-3c doesn't apply to the shortstop.
There's the rules based reasoning for no interference.