Interference call

[vancouverfp]

Had a tough situation come up today, not sure the right call was made.

Situation: Runner at third no outs. Batter hits a foul ball up the third base line. It's not a pop up, more of a lame duck line drive. Runner is 5 feet off the bag at third, in foul territory, and turns to go back to bag. Third base runs towards the foul ball and runs into the runner. Almost no chance to make the catch even if she doesn't run into the base runner.

Umpire calls dead ball, runner out.

That the right call? Don't have a rule book handy, or the energy to find a relevant rule.

[Comp]

If the umpire judged the fielder had a chance to catch the foul ball, then yes it would be interferance.

[Anti-Clone]

And in many associations (including ASA) both the runner AND batter would be out.

You better be sure you're confident it was a catchable ball before you bang out two players on one pitch that wasn't even hit fair...Doesn't mean you can't, but you better be sure.

[MTR]

If the umpire judged the fielder had a chance to catch the foul ball, then yes it would be interferance.

^^^^
The only thing that would save the runner in this case would be if the runner reached the base prior to the act of interference.

ASA Rule 8.7.J.1
Exception RS 33.A.1.c

[Comp]

And in many associations (including ASA) both the runner AND batter would be out.

You better be sure you're confident it was a catchable ball before you bang out two players on one pitch that wasn't even hit fair...Doesn't mean you can't, but you better be sure.

Must be a routine fly ball, fair or foul and catchable with normal effort in order to get both outs.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Had a tough situation come up today, not sure the right call was made.

Situation: Runner at third no outs. Batter hits a foul ball up the third base line. It's not a pop up, more of a lame duck line drive. Runner is 5 feet off the bag at third, in foul territory, and turns to go back to bag. Third base runs towards the foul ball and runs into the runner. Almost no chance to make the catch even if she doesn't run into the base runner.
Umpire calls dead ball, runner out.

That the right call? Don't have a rule book handy, or the energy to find a relevant rule.

NO, it's not the right call if " there was almost no chance to make the catch even if she doen't run into the base runner "

[Comp]

NO, it's not the right call if " there was almost no chance to make the catch even if she doen't run into the base runner

And this is where umpire judgement comes into play. You have a coach who felt in his judgement the ball was almost uncatchable, yet the umpire apparently judged the exact opposite as he ruled it to be interference.

[GIMNEPIWO]

NO, it's not the right call if " there was almost no chance to make the catch even if she doen't run into the base runner

And this is where umpire judgement comes into play. You have a coach who felt in his judgement the ball was almost uncatchable, yet the umpire apparently judged the exact opposite as he ruled it to be interference.

Absolutely, just pointing out what was said in the OP and what the judgement of the poster was ... Who incidentely didn't say if he/she was a Coach, Blue, Parent, Grounds Keeper, Concession Stand Volunteer or Parish Preist.

[MTR]

NO, it's not the right call if " there was almost no chance to make the catch even if she doen't run into the base runner

And this is where umpire judgement comes into play. You have a coach who felt in his judgement the ball was almost uncatchable, yet the umpire apparently judged the exact opposite as he ruled it to be interference.

Absolutely, just pointing out what was said in the OP and what the judgement of the poster was ... Who incidentely didn't say if he/she was a Coach, Blue, Parent, Grounds Keeper, Concession Stand Volunteer or Parish Preist.

In my world, ALMOST anything is neither absolute or conclusive.

[HugoTafurst]

Seems to me, "there was almost no chance to make the catch", means there is A chance to catch the ball.