Runner Interference? You make the call.

first play: Clear RLI. no umpire should have a different view on this.
second play: R2 pretty clearly hindered F5's attempt to field the ball. Interference. F5 clearly had the better play than F6.
clip a: probably not. while R2 paused in front of F6, there appears to have been no hindrance. this one will depend on how the umpire on the field views and interprets the action (the umpire actually in this play didn't view or interpret anything, because he turned his back to the play and dropped to his knees. as umpire sin goes, that's about as deadly as it gets.)
clip b: probably not. really the same thing as clip a. important point: the fact that F6 fielded the ball does not disprove interference; F6 may have fielded the ball in spite of interference rather than without interference. it is critical to not wait to see if the fielder makes the play anyway: it either was or was not interference the moment it happened.
clip c: my judgment is that F6 was hindered by R2 between him and the ball for too long. interference.
clip d: clear interference. F4 altered his path to avoid and braced for collision with R1, and was unable to field the ball. in OBR and LL, I have R1 out, BR to 1B, R2 returns to 2B, no double play because there was no "deliberate interference with obvious intent to break up a double-play". under FED rules, this is a double play, the umpire need only judge that a double play was possible, intent is not a factor: both R1 and BR are out, R2 returns to 2B.

They both should have been called out because they stopped to INTENTIONALLY interfere

I know this is old, but your first clip isn't exactly correct at the LL level. If it is a LL game, like LLI (not the travel stuff), if the runners lane line is not on the ground, runners lane cannot be enforced unless the player is in the "grass" or what not. At this point, the runner has a 3 foot variance on the white line which they stayed in.

1 no, 2 3 4 yes. 5 6 no

Read all the different answers on this page, and all of the different opinions. THAT'S the key. These are all "JUDGMENT" calls. A lot of umpire calls in baseball are based on judgment.

A an D, clearly yes. B no, C MAYBE

they are all out!

Clip A = Interference, Runner is Out. Clip B = Runner appears to be trying to avoid being hit by the Batted Ball, no call. Clip C = no call. Clip D = Runner Interference.

Giving too much credit. Except for the first play, looks like they are trying not to be hit with a batted ball.

Several things must be understood before making these types of runner interference calls. 1) the runner has the right to the baseline and the fielder has the right to field the ball wherever it is hit; 2) obviously if a runner gets hit with a batted ball prior to touching a defensive player and the runner is in fair territory, the runner is out, thus the runner must make the decision whether to try and "beat" the batted ball or wait for it to go past before proceeding; 3) the interference SHOULD be based on an "intentional" effort by either runner or fielder to hinder the other's ability to make a play.
#1 Example-especially at this level (little league?), the runner is on the baseline and has no idea where the ball is being thrown or if it is even thrown at all PLUS there is no "designated" runner's lane chalked on the field, therefore NO INTEREFERENCE-just a bad throw, ALWAYS instruct fielders to try and throw to the inside part of the bag (it's also a shorter distance).
#2 Example--judgement call but appears to me the runner decided to wait until the ball passed in front of him prior to continuing to run.
Clip A--clear interference by the runner as they intentionally stopped in front of the ball to hinder the fielder's ability to field the ball.
Clip B--ditto #2 example
Clip C--again, ditto #2 example
Clip D--tough call, could go either way but since the fielder was IN FRONT of the runner when trying to make the play, let it "slide" :)

Why do the 3rd basemen always look lost in all the RLI videos,…….
coach ‘em correct!!

ABD yes. C no

Out in A&D...play on in B&C

Clip A yes, he intentionally waits and disrupts his path, clip B, no, avoiding the ball and no disruption to fielder, Clip C, same, Clip D, Yes, makes contact with fielder

I don't understand all the rules, but in the 2nd clip why would you choose to protect the 3rd baseman? He has the furthest to go to make the play, he also if as described has to at some point cross the base runners path so there a potential for a collision there.

clip A - Runner should be ruled out. Deliberate or not he interfered with the ability of the fielder to pursue and field a batted ball.
Clip B, though the runner hesitates , he does not interfere with the fielders ability or path to make the play. No interference.
I watched clips C and D several times and I have a balk in both clips C an D so the interference calls would be ignored. The pitcher, with that extra twist toward second, unless it is part of his normal delivery, is making a deliberate attempt to deceive the runner. That's a balk, delayed dead ball, award the bases when the play concludes.

My first assessment is the first 3 clips are all bad base running! Ball to the shortstop he should not be going anyways! Only one of those hits were considered slow rollers.

Clip A: “interference” clear intent by the runner to block the ball from the fielder.
Clip B: “Interference” runner seemed to have paused in front of the ball intentionally!
Clip C: “Not Interference” Bad base running! Runner avoids the ball by the hesitation.
Clip D: Could be interference. However, it looked like the Fielder rounded the ball to make the play at 1b, just failed to make the play. ***If the runner touched the fielder, caused the fielder to change course, or blocked the ball; it would be clear interference.

There isn’t a lane there is a line. He was close enough for an 8ur old

Clips A,B,C probably not. It's judgement so maybe. D... without a doubt interference.

Clip A interference.
Clip B runner is avoiding the ball
Clip c runner is avoiding the ball after secondary lead.
Clip D hard to tell from angle and depth but if runner made contact with fielder he is out.

To me b and c is the base runners clearly avoiding the ball. If they didn't slow up very good chance the ball hits them.

I think not enough defenders earn this call. What I mean is, way too many just never attempt to make the proper play (i.e. they stay behind the runner instead of charging the ball) which makes it much more challenging on an umpire to call. It's not that much difference from defensive obstruction, where too many players divert their paths around defenders.

A: Yes. F6 clearly abandons his effort to move up on the ball because of the runner.
B: No. F6 still has a clear play when R2 moves to avoid being hit by the ball.
C: No. Same situation as B. F6 still has every opportunity to field that ball as the runner dances around it to avoid being hit.
D: Yes. F4 clearly alters his attempt to field the ball because of the runner, even though the runner ends up behind him.

First play is never getting called if it was first basemen would always just catch the ball back over the bag so the runner always runs into their glove and the would be safe. Second play looks like interference but if the ump rules the SS as the protected fielder I could see a no call. As for last plays they are all marginal the player stop because they no they can't let the ball hit them it appears that's their only intention but if you called it either way no real complaints

I clip C he was just avoiding the ball. Idk if that changes anything on it

Yes, no, no, maybe

Runner 1 is also usng the wrong foot to touch the bag. He really should have hit the bag with his left foot, not right foot. Had he done this, it would be less obvious.

Here is another. Im home plate ...Runner at second. Count is 3-2. Two outs. Batter takes pitch. I call Ball, but catcher, obviously well groomed in the art of gamesmanship( not bad for a 16 year old) rolls ball toward pitchers mound and heads to dugout in an attempt to "steal" a strike three call. Runner advances to third.
Coach of defending team argues that he believes the ball is dead and the runner at second should be ordered to return.
MY ruling is "live ball". All runners are safe at the bases they occupy after the play.

Here is a scenario I once experienced .
I was Base umpire in a two man system.
Runner at first. One out.
Batter hits a sharp ground ball to first, Runner leaves for second. First baseman fields ball cleanly, steps on first. Throws ball to second base. Runner stops and hustles back to first.
My calls...Batter is out. Runner returning to first, safe.
Coach for batting team goes ballistic. He is ejected and a report filed.
You guys go ahead. Call correct? Or Incorrect?

Clip D...Runner is forced to alter his course to avoid contact with the fielder Is BEHIND fielder at the moment the fielder defends. Not interference

clip A...Runner is ruled out. Deliberate attempt to interfere with the ability of the fielder to pursue and field a batted ball.
Clip B, though the runner hesitates , he does not interfere with the fielders ability or path to the ball. Not interference.
Clip C...Runner slows to avoid being struck by a batted ball. Not interference

I had an interesting one once. 12-year-old tournament semi-final game, runner on second. I was BU. Grounder to short, R2 plows into F6. "Time! Interference! Runner is out, batter, first base!"

The offensive coach went ballistic. "The fielder was in the base path." Why yes, he was. What's your point? (No, I didn't say it like that, but I wanted to. I do love it when the coach and I agree on the facts; way less to discuss.)

But there's a fun postscript. After the game I happened to run into several moms from that team, and they very politely asked what happened on that play, so I explained it. One of the moms was nodding in agreement the whole time. I mentioned that I seemed to be preaching to the choir, and she explained that the coach actually taught his runners to do that. She played softball in college, and was pretty sure the rule was the same for both baseball and softball, and tried to tell the coach that he was teaching the players wrong, but there's no way he was listening to a woman. Not even one who knew the rules better than him.

A yes. B,c no. D yes.

yes,yes ,yes ,no

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

I called runner’s interference on something very similar to the 1st play. Ball hit the runner in the back of the head. Almost tossed a coach

Clip A & B runner interference, Clip C could go either way on umpire judgement, Clip D umpire judgement or no interference

Umpires in these clips need some serious work on their mechanics. In the first clip with the bunt, first base ump is just ambling to a bad spot to make a call, in clip A (interference) dude full on takes a knee. That's not a taught mechanic. Clip B (no interference) was much better. Clip C ( probably not interference), the umpire in the middle is trying to look over his shoulder at the ball/play. Clip D (interference) same crew, was moving and not set.

Runners are all out!

Yes,no,no,yes

Question If in clip B interference is called, what is the result? Runner out due to interference and the batter out at first on the throw? Or is only the runner out?

The best amateur baseball WWYD rules channel hands down

I agree they were all out. However what could they have done differently to avoid the out? Run harder or held up completely? Hard to do when you see a ball coming at you.

The third one he actually helped the fielder

A/D yes B/C no

I wouldn't have called any of them out for interference. The first three seemed to be just avoiding the ball and not interfering with the fielder and the 4th one it appeared the fielder was in front of the runner

I think Yes, no, yes yes