baserunner interference

[ballguy]

At a recent high school game (Indiana) I witnessed a questionable call. Base runner on 1st gets lead after pitch. Ball is hit to where base runner is at after lead. Base runner manages to avoid contact. Some how she twinkle toes and gets behind fielder on her way to 2nd. 2nd baseman makes play and gets out at first. Umpire calls time and rules base runner is out for interference. She places batter on first and called runner out. After questioning by coaches umpire states that it doesn't matter if there was contact or not. The runner must give the fielder a glove and a half space to make the play. I have never heard of this rule. Is this really a high school rule or was umpire covering her backside? Thanks for clarification.

[wadeintothem]

Well.. there is no rule that there must be contact anymore than there is a rule that the runner must give a glove and a half space.

I for one do not have a clear enough picture to know if there was INT or not.

[GIMNEPIWO]

My NFHS book is out in the truck and the cooler is in the house ... so I ain't going back out there ... but 'the glove and a half step' sounds similar to a 'step and and reach' wording I remember in NFHS ... but I don't see how it could possibly apply here ... if she did not make contact ( which as Wade points out is not necessary for INT. ) and ran behind the fielder ... I don't see how he got INT. unless he thought some action of R1 prevented the fielder from getting the lead out at 2nd, but evidentely he didn't believe her actions broke up the DP or he could have had R1 & the BR out ... Also, is it possible he had R1 out for running out of her base path to avoid a tag ? ... or, is it possible the BU said the the batted ball struck twinkle toes, in which case she would have been out and the BR awarded first base ?

[Bretman]

"Glove and a half"? That's a new one I'm going to add to my list of things to never use when explaining a call! It's going right behind "malicious attempt". As noted, there is no such rule.

Also noted, there is no requirement for actual contact with the fielder for an interference call to be made.

Hard to picture what happened here, especially with the runner somehow winding up behind the fielder. But I can envision a possible way that this could be interference and a good call.

If, when the runner was doing her "twinkle toes" dance in an effort to avoid the ball, she momentarily stopped advancing toward second, while the fielder was moving toward the ball, and the runner's position caused the fielder to "check up" or otherwise alter her path to the ball, then you could judge that the fielder was interfered with.

I've seen this and called it before. Runners can be pretty crafty in doing their little "stop and dance", making it look like they're trying to avoid the ball, when their dance and positioning is really a thinly veiled attempt to screen the fielder's view or otherwise disrupt her play.

If the runner's intent is to advance to the next base, then she really should keep moving in that direction. If she stops and dances around in one spot, you have to consider if her positioning may have impeded/hindered/distracted the fielder.

[MTR]

At a recent high school game (Indiana) I witnessed a questionable call. Base runner on 1st gets lead after pitch. Ball is hit to where base runner is at after lead. Base runner manages to avoid contact. Some how she twinkle toes and gets behind fielder on her way to 2nd. 2nd baseman makes play and gets out at first. Umpire calls time and rules base runner is out for interference. She places batter on first and called runner out. After questioning by coaches umpire states that it doesn't matter if there was contact or not. The runner must give the fielder a glove and a half space to make the play. I have never heard of this rule. Is this really a high school rule or was umpire covering her backside? Thanks for clarification.

Tap dance however she likes, there is no such rule. IF there was INT, no problem, but the umpire should have killed the ball the moment interference occurred, not at the end of the play. The "excuse" offered is a tell-tale sign that this umpire hasn't a clue what the real rules are and how they are applied.

[umpinva]

IF there was INT, no problem, but the umpire should have killed the ball the moment interference occurred, not at the end of the play.

Excellent point. Interference is an immediate dead ball.