Interference Question

[roccreator]

We were in the field and there was a runner on 1st. Batter bunts to 3rd and catcher forgets to cover 3rd. Shortstop covering 2nd sees problem and runs stride for stride with runner trying to advance to 3rd. 1st baseman throws to 3rd and shortstop makes an amazing catch to tag runner before reaching base.
Home plate ump calls runner out. 3rd base coach (scrambling) starts yelling interference and talks to field ump.
Long story short, Field ump says in his opinion it looked as if the two girl jersey's had touched and reverses call.
My argument: That's not interference. Interference is when the fielder gets in the way of, or alters the path of the runner.
At this point he seemed confused and said: Let's just get on with the game because I'm not changing anything at this point.
Is it interference if the two jersey's touch or was that a bad call???

[tvarg]

We were in the field and there was a runner on 1st. Batter bunts to 3rd and catcher forgets to cover 3rd. Shortstop covering 2nd sees problem and runs stride for stride with runner trying to advance to 3rd. 1st baseman throws to 3rd and shortstop makes an amazing catch to tag runner before reaching base.
Home plate ump calls runner out. 3rd base coach (scrambling) starts yelling interference and talks to field ump.
Long story short, Field ump says in his opinion it looked as if the two girl jersey's had touched and reverses call.
My argument: That's not interference. Interference is when the fielder gets in the way of, or alters the path of the runner.
At this point he seemed confused and said: Let's just get on with the game because I'm not changing anything at this point.
Is it interference if the two jersey's touch or was that a bad call???

Seems like u had to b there to c it total judgement call. Never seen two girls jerseys touch without there being anykind of interference call on defense or offense

[roccreator]

He said "it looked as if their jersey's touched"....no one bumped, tripped, stumbled or anything. Is jersey's touching interference?

[Comp]

First, you are speaking about obstruction, not interference. Offensive players interfere, defensive players obstruct.

As already stated, this is a would have had to be there situation. If either umpire felt the defensive player without posession of the ball had hindered the runner, then an obstruction call would have been justified. The coach should have been discussing the play with the plate umpire who had the call at 3rd, not the base umpire. If the plate umpire then had a question on the play he could discuss it himself with the base umpire. If the base umpire had called obstruction, he should have immediately called a dead ball when the runner was tagged out and informed the plate umpire he had an obstruction call.

[UmpSteve]

We were in the field and there was a runner on 1st. Batter bunts to 3rd and catcher forgets to cover 3rd. Shortstop covering 2nd sees problem and runs stride for stride with runner trying to advance to 3rd. 1st baseman throws to 3rd and shortstop makes an amazing catch to tag runner before reaching base.
Home plate ump calls runner out. 3rd base coach (scrambling) starts yelling interference and talks to field ump.
Long story short, Field ump says in his opinion it looked as if the two girl jersey's had touched and reverses call.
My argument: That's not interference. Interference is when the fielder gets in the way of, or alters the path of the runner.
At this point he seemed confused and said: Let's just get on with the game because I'm not changing anything at this point.
Is it interference if the two jersey's touch or was that a bad call???

Let's start with some definitions, so we all understand what is being asked/said.

1) Interference is the act of an offensive team member that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play.

2) Obstruction is the act of a defensive team member that impedes the progress of a runner who is legally running the bases, unless the fielder is a) in possession of the ball, or b) in the act of fielding a batted ball.

So, from listening to your description, not only wasn't there interference, but that isn't what the umpire ruled on, either; because interference means the runner is out.

There could have been obstruction; that is if, in the umpire's judgment, your fielder in any way hindered the runner before having possession of the ball. No one can tell you, or anyone else, if jerseys touching is enough to determine if the runner was hindered or impeded; but if the umpire judges she was, that is obstruction.

[roccreator]

You are right....Obstruction, not interference is the right argument.
Except the umpires in question ruled "Interference". The 3rd base coach was yelling Interference and got that in their head.
The field ump never called or signaled obstruction. Only after plate ump asked him did he say: "it looked like their jersey's touched".....still if he saw that, he never called it or signaled it. They both seemed very confused and wanted it to go away.....

[MTR]

You are right....Obstruction, not interference is the right argument.
Except the umpires in question ruled "Interference". The 3rd base coach was yelling Interference and got that in their head.

Not a problem. "Coach, if you want interference, you got it. Out! "

The field ump never called or signaled obstruction. Only after plate ump asked him did he say: "it looked like their jersey's touched".....still if he saw that, he never called it or signaled it. They both seemed very confused and wanted it to go away.....

From the description, this doesn't sound like much of anything, but a standard play for an out on the tag.

[roccreator]

Thanks MTR....That's what I was thinking

[ajaywill]

Not a problem. "Coach, if you want interference, you got it. Out! "

This was my first thought.....

[Crabby_Bob]

Would you really do it? Talk about kicking a hornet's nest...