Liner hit towards the middle: collision between shortstop & runner on 2nd

[luclang_Canada]

Hello;

I've got a question on a play that happened in one of my games last Sunday. Pretty sure I made the right call:

"Runners on 1st and 2nd, nobody out. The batter hits a sharp liner towards second base (without touching the ground) almost up the middle. The shortstop lunges to make the play but collides with the runner, who had stopped as he did not want to interfere with the shortstop.

On the play, the centerfielder threw the ball towards 3rd base, and the forced out was applied on the runner on 2nd base. Out comes the defensive team's manager who wanted me to call a double play, as he is sure his shortstop was going to catch the ball and tag the runner on 2nd base out. Meanwhile, the offensive team's manager is crying defensive interference as he is sure the shortstop got into the runner's lane when he saw that he could not catch the ball.

After consultation with my base umpire: I ruled that there is no defensive or offensive interference, that the runner on 2nd was ruled out at 3rd base on the force play. I told the manager that I can't make a decision based on a supposition. From my position, I'm sure if he would've caught the ball, he would've lost his balance (from his momentum) and could not have a play at 2nd. Did we make the right call?

Thanks for your feedback.

Luc Lang,
Quebec, QC, Canada

 

[mmeece]

Just for reference sake interference= against batting team, obstruction= against defensve team. From the description it sounds like you should have interference (out) against the runner and an immediate dead ball, batter awarded 1st base. There is no need for the runner to have intentionally interfered. There are some rule sets that would allow for a double play in certain situations, but I don't have the specifics memorized or in front of me.

 

[marriard]

Hello;

I've got a question on a play that happened in one of my games last Sunday. Pretty sure I made the right call:

"Runners on 1st and 2nd, nobody out. The batter hits a sharp liner towards second base (without touching the ground) almost up the middle. The shortstop lunges to make the play but collides with the runner, who had stopped as he did not want to interfere with the shortstop.

On the play, the centerfielder threw the ball towards 3rd base, and the forced out was applied on the runner on 2nd base. Out comes the defensive team's manager who wanted me to call a double play, as he is sure his shortstop was going to catch the ball and tag the runner on 2nd base out. Meanwhile, the offensive team's manager is crying defensive interference as he is sure the shortstop got into the runner's lane when he saw that he could not catch the ball.

After consultation with my base umpire: I ruled that there is no defensive or offensive interference, that the runner on 2nd was ruled out at 3rd base on the force play. I told the manager that I can't make a decision based on a supposition. From my position, I'm sure if he would've caught the ball, he would've lost his balance (from his momentum) and could not have a play at 2nd. Did we make the right call?

Thanks for your feedback.

Luc Lang,
Quebec, QC, Canada

Maybe... Really have to be there/see video to give a proper opinion on the actual play.

If you believe the SS had a chance to field the ball and the runner is off the base; then it is an immediate dead ball, interference. Runner is out, batter goes to 1B. And that is probably it - extremely hard to call a double play on a hard hit liner. And the play is over (and if you get together after the play and decide this was the correct call, then what happened after that you can ignore. Because you have declared the ball dead at contact (even retroactively)

If the SS didn't have a chance to catch/field the ball, then you are probably good just letting it play out and calling what happened.


And yes I have had a coach come out on the batting side to argue that we should have called interference on his runner which meant the double play that actually happened couldn't have happened (basically the ball bounced to another fielder who threw the runner out at first and they nailed a runner coming home). And he was RIGHT - and we had to take outs off the board.


But had to be there.

 

[flash277]

Say there is a runner on 2b and 1b and the ball is hit towards the right side of 2b. The SS moves that way but never would of made it, and she runs into the runner from 2b, is that obstruction on SS? She was moving to make play….

 

[jackfrost]

You can't have nothing here. Either you think the SS had no chance to catch the ball (obstruction by the SS) or you think SS might have gotten to the ball (interference by the runner). Got to be one or the other when you have contact. The only way you get a double play is if you rule interference AND you determine the interference was intentional to prevent a double play.

 

[SoulFY]

Say there is a runner on 2b and 1b and the ball is hit towards the right side of 2b. The SS moves that way but never would of made it, and she runs into the runner from 2b, is that obstruction on SS? She was moving to make play….

If the SS as you say, would not have made it to the ball to to control it, then she cannot impede the offense as she does not have possession of the ball and by the rule is not considered making an initial play - Obstruction.

If you feel like she can control the ball, then she is considered making an initial play and the offense cant impede her - Interference.

 

[quincy]

Always on side of defense then go from there.

 

[CoachJD]

And yes I have had a coach come out on the batting side to argue that we should have called interference on his runner which meant the double play that actually happened couldn't have happened (basically the ball bounced to another fielder who threw the runner out at first and they nailed a runner coming home). And he was RIGHT - and we had to take outs off the board.

Smart coach, but that had to be a bit of a weird one for you. I'm guessing you weren't expecting the coach to argue that particular point.

 

[marriard]

Smart coach, but that had to be a bit of a weird one for you. I'm guessing you weren't expecting the coach to argue that particular point.

Fortunately, it was covered in a nfhs exam a few years ago so we got it right. Not fun explaining to coach that we have to take their double play away.