Last Night's "Non-Interference" Call

A few people asked about the controversial play that happened early in the game last night against Glen Ellyn.

With two out and runners on second and third base, the batter struck out. Unfortunately, the third strike was dropped by our catcher and the ball deflected down the first base line. The batter-runner made contact with the ball on his way down the line--deflecting it towards the screen. At that point, it was going to be a difficult play for the catcher. His throw down to first base sailed down the line. Two runs scored on the play and three more runs subsequently scored before the inning finally came to an end.

There can be much confusion about when an interference call should be made. I thought it might be helpful to clarify the interference rule as it applies to this play.

When determining if interference should be called, an umpire must first consider the following: Was it a batted ball? In the case of a batted ball, a runner should be called out for interference if he makes contact with the ball or hinders a fielder in any way during his attempt to make a play. Interference is called even if the fielder moves into the baseline to field a ball. With a batted ball, the fielder has full rights to go for the baseball--and it's the runner's responsibility to give the fielder clearance to make the play.

However, this play DID NOT involve a batted ball. In the case of a thrown ball, or a dropped ball, the umpire must now consider a different question before making an interference call. The question now becomes: Did the runner intentionally interfere with the fielder's attempt to make a play? If the contact with the ball, or player, isn't deemed intentional, there is no interference. Fielders lose most of their protection through the interference call once the ball has been dropped!

As I went out to question the call, the base umpire simply said one word: inadvertent. He was quickly communicating that the batter's contact with the ball was not intentional, so there was no interference. I happen to agree with his assessment on this particular play.

I asked a few other umpires from around the country about this particular play. It's their opinion that interference should NOT have been called. They point out that the catcher already had his opportunity to catch the ball (on the third strike) and now he is simply chasing a loose ball.