Interference - yes or no ?

[GIMNEPIWO]

NFHS ... R1 on 1st base no outs ... BR hits the ball into left field ... R1 rounds second as the ball is being fielded ... F7 throws behind R1 to F4 covering the bag ... R1 goes back to second slightly ahead of the throw and bumps F4's glove with her hands as the throw is arriving ... ball hits the glove and bounces out rolling away from second base ... R1 runs to third beating the throw from F4 to F6 ... BR is taking a nap and never runs to second on the throw to F6 ...

Make the call, then I will say what the Umps ruled and which side of the ensuing argument I was on ...

[Bretman]

If the runner is doing nothing more than going back to the base and the fielder is standing in her way, I'd say no interference (and maybe even obstruction).

If the runner did something like swipe at the glove (ie: something more than what you would associate with an effort to simply reach the base) then interference could be a viable call.

[MarkJMillsap]

If the runner is doing nothing more than going back to the base and the fielder is standing in her way, I'd say no interference (and maybe even obstruction).

If the runner did something like swipe at the glove (ie: something more than what you would associate with an effort to simply reach the base) then interference could be a viable call.

I agree, if player isn't in possession of the ball she must avoid the runner.

[Turn&burn]

I agree with Bretman, no interference unless in the umpire’s judgment the runner intentionally swiped at the glove to prevent the fielder from catching the throw. No obstruction since a play is being made on the runner at second within reason of making an out.

[Steve M]

I agree with Bretman, no interference unless in the umpire’s judgment the runner intentionally swiped at the glove to prevent the fielder from catching the throw. No obstruction since a play is being made on the runner at second within reason of making an out.

WHOA, the question was on NFHS rules, right?
If the fielder does not possess the thrown ball, they are likely to be guilty of obstruction in a play like this.

[MTR]

I think this thread took a wrong turn. Believe it issue isn't anything more other than whether the runner knocking the ball out of the glove and whether intent has any bearing or not.

[GIMNEPIWO]

I think this thread took a wrong turn. Believe it issue isn't anything more other than whether the runner knocking the ball out of the glove and whether intent has any bearing or not.

Well ... yes or no ... I was coaching in this original post ... Not saying whether I was the OC or the DC ... Think about what I could argue either way and then I will say what the Umpires ruled and what I argued and we can go from there ... BTW ... I protested the game, we were ahead at the time and won 7-5, so it was a moot point ...

[HugoTafurst]

(snip)

Well ... yes or no ... I was coaching in this original post ... Not saying whether I was the OC or the DC ... Think about what I could argue either way and then I will say what the Umpires ruled and what I argued and we can go from there ... BTW ... I protested the game, we were ahead at the time and won 7-5, so it was a moot point ...

Sometimes this game playing is a little tedious...

Given the information from the original post:

R1 goes back to second slightly ahead of the throw and bumps F4's glove with her hands as the throw is arriving ... ball hits the glove and bounces out rolling away from second base ... R1 runs to third

I think Bretman answerd your question Friday.....

[GIMNEPIWO]

(snip)

Well ... yes or no ... I was coaching in this original post ... Not saying whether I was the OC or the DC ... Think about what I could argue either way and then I will say what the Umpires ruled and what I argued and we can go from there ... BTW ... I protested the game, we were ahead at the time and won 7-5, so it was a moot point ...

Sometimes this game playing is a little tedious...
Given the information from the original post:

R1 goes back to second slightly ahead of the throw and bumps F4's glove with her hands as the throw is arriving ... ball hits the glove and bounces out rolling away from second base ... R1 runs to third

I think Bretman answerd your question Friday.....

Well, not my intention ... The reason I posted as unslanted as I did was to get as unslanted an opinion as possible ... The way I saw it was the way I stated in the OP ... Even I thought it could go either way ... or three ways ... OBS, INT, Malicious Contact ...

Plate Umpire made this call over the base umpire who was on top of the play ... He called interference on R1 and sent her back to second ... The DC argued that she should be out ... He consulted with the base umpire and called R1 out ... OC argued that it should be OBS and not INT and that the contact was incidental because F4 was standing on the bag, in R1's way without the ball ...

* EDIT: BTW - I was the OC and lost this argument ...