Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: Emmitt, TABLE SETTER 11; 59 anonymousDiscussion: Interference or Not
| Posted | Discussion |
| Feb. 8, 2023 Mike14 2 posts | Interference or Not This happened to me catching a few years back so I'm curious as to the outcome. A pop up was hit just in front of the batter. I went to field it but made contact with the batter and missed the ball which hit fair and then spun foul. I asked the umpire for an interference call because contact was made but he claimed the batter's box was a safe zone. My theory is that any contact made with a fielder on the initial ball is interference and the batter should have been declared out. I would say it's the same as if somehow a runner delayed leaving the box and then made contact with me as I was running to get his dribble in front of the plate. Who's right? |
| Feb. 9, 2023 B.J. 1107 posts | no the batters box is not a safe zone.. the only safe zone would be a base that a runner is standing on |
| Feb. 9, 2023 DirkPitt 33 posts | B.J. - here is one for you from this past weekend and is similar to the above. I'm pretty sure I know the answer but just confirming. Batter hits a very short pop-up that is going to land ~5-8ft in front of home plate. Catcher collides with RH batter-runner as he attempts to field the ball. Umpire ruled the batter-runner safe and stated that the batter-runner has a right to the baseline. |
| Feb. 9, 2023 Hank Heffner 11 posts | On a batted ball the defense has the right to make a play on the ball. The runner must avoid contact. |
| Feb. 9, 2023 B.J. 1107 posts | HH Is correct |
| Feb. 9, 2023 B.J. 1107 posts | One thing I should’ve added is that the only time I might have obstruction on the fielder would be if the runner gave the fielder the opportunity to make a play and the fielder booted the ball and then changed direction chasing the ball and ran into the runner.. |
| Feb. 9, 2023 titanhd Men's 60 639 posts | Question: So it doesn't make a difference who made the initial contact. Per Mike 14 HE made contact- not the batter. |
| Feb. 9, 2023 B.J. 1107 posts | correct the runner must give the fielder a clear path to make the play.. Int. by a runner does not have to be intentional |
| Feb. 10, 2023 stick8 1992 posts | This is exactly like the infamous bunt by Cincinnati Reds outfielder Ed Armbrister in the 1975 World Series. Armbrister laid down what was intended to be a sacrifice bunt. Upon running to first he collided with Red Sox catcher Carlton Fisk who was attempting to field the ball. It caused Fisk to throw wildly to second in an attempt to force the runner from first. No call was made by home plate umpire Larry Barnett. This has been a subject of a lot of debate thru the years. I invite people to Google the play. My call: interference on Armbrister. |
| Feb. 10, 2023 DieselDan Men's 75 602 posts | Thought about it yesterday, but here's the play stick8 mentioned. As you watch the video, keep an eye on Barnett's right hand. To me, he's made a fist and raising his hand. No one on the broadcast team mentioned that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRw2_KvHcPk |
| March 14, 2023 Bigtimer40 16 posts | Mike....as the Umpire for our local Senior league, I had this exact scenario last summer. I called dead ball at the point of contact and ruled the Batter out for interference. His argument was "well I thought it may bounce and go foul" then he thought he was also safe, because he was in the batters box. Had he attempted to run there would have been no contact. |
