Interference on foul fly ball ?

[hit4power]

Playing ASA...

R1 at 3B and takes a lead with the pitch. Batter hits a short pop foul just short of 3B and near the dugout. Seeing the popup, R1 begins to retreat to 3B and collides with F5 who is charging across the foul line to try to catch the popup. F5 gets untangled with R1, gets to the fence at the front of the dugout but is unable to make the catch. The ball lands untouched on the field beside the front of the dugout. BU initially called R1 out on INT, but after discussion with PU reverses himself. I couldn't hear the conversation but I'm curious as to what could be a possible reason to reverse the call?

[okla21fan]

Playing ASA...

R1 at 3B and takes a lead with the pitch. Batter hits a short pop foul just short of 3B and near the dugout. Seeing the popup, R1 begins to retreat to 3B and collides with F5 who is charging across the foul line to try to catch the popup. F5 gets untangled with R1, gets to the fence at the front of the dugout but is unable to make the catch. The ball lands untouched on the field beside the front of the dugout. BU initially called R1 out on INT, but after discussion with PU reverses himself. I couldn't hear the conversation but I'm curious as to what could be a possible reason to reverse the call?

With normal and ordinary effort, in your unbiased opinion could F5 have made the catch had she not had contact with R1??

[BenAround]

Doesn't it matter if the contact occurred in foul territory ?

[okla21fan]

Doesn't it matter if the contact occurred in foul territory ?

nope, not if the 'act' of interference was committed

[hit4power]

With normal and ordinary effort, in your unbiased opinion could F5 have made the catch had she not had contact with R1??

I'm guessing that's what the discussion was about. Certainly a HTBT situation, and any catch against the fence is always tricky and perhaps not done with ordinary effort. The only thing I could say is that w/o the contact, F5 would have gotten to the fence more quickly and had more time to establish herself, locate the ball, and try to make the catch. No interference would have made the catch easier, but perhaps still not something in the envelope of normal and ordinary.

[joaquinjunior]

R1 did what she had to do. run back to the bag. reverse call was correct.

[Comp]

R1 did what she had to do. run back to the bag. reverse call was correct.

The offense cannot interfere with a defensive player making a play on a batted ball. Trying to get back to the base to tag does not negate the runners responsibility to give the fielder room to field the ball. The most likely reason for the reversal of the call was how far the ball was hit toward the dugout and was not catchable with normal effort.

[joaquinjunior]

running from 2B - 3B is really different than running form a lead-off from 3B -back to the bag. its a move that was done quick, so R1 just reacted and didnt realize that the player was right there, as she turned to go back to the bag. At this point, I guess its a judgement call on the umpires. Could go iether way.

[UmpSteve]

running from 2B - 3B is really different than running form a lead-off from 3B -back to the bag. its a move that was done quick, so R1 just reacted and didnt realize that the player was right there, as she turned to go back to the bag. At this point, I guess its a judgement call on the umpires. Could go iether way.

No, it really isn't different; and not realizing the player was there (so no intent, you are saying) is simply not important.

Bottom line. With the sole exception of the right to stay on the base and be hit by the batted ball (8.8-M), the runner has zero right to impede, hinder, or otherwise keep a defensive player from making a play on a batted ball. The runner (same as a base coach) must yield whatever space the defensive player needs. None of your rationalizations apply.

The ONLY things to be considered are: 1) Was there a play, in the judgment of the umpires? 2) If yes, then did the runner hinder the defensive player from making that play? (8.7-J)

If yes, yes, then interference, runner is out, batter assessed a foul strike (if foul), or batter is placed on first base (if fair). If the play would be considered "routine", then both runner and batter are out (8.7-J-L Note EXCEPTION).

[pdm54]

Had the same situation in a game I was working. I was BU and the PU overruled my interference call. It should have been R1 out for interference and batter out because the pop foul was easily catchable about 3 to 4 feet off the line. He decided it wasn't intentional so nobody was out. It doesn't matter if it is intentional or not, there should have been 2 outs on the play.