What a terrible way to end a LL Regional game
California had a 2-1 lead, Nevada loaded the bases with two outs, then the batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop.
The runner runs in front of the shortstop, BUT did not interfere, IMHO. Shortstop air mails the throw over first and two runs score for Nevada.
BUT umpire calls interference on the play and California gets the win.
Apparently, the call can't be reviewed by replay.
Horrible way to end a game a prevent Nevada from going to the World Series.
** Edited by VTChip at 7/23/2026, 7:15:14 PM
49 Replies
1w
Absolutely no contact was made.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
1w
(In response to this post by VTChip)
1w
To get to third as fast as possible without having to stop to avoid that type of “interference”
(In response to this post by VTChip)
1w
your assessment on a forced runner having the absolute right away without having to avoid interference.
(In response to this post by VAHokie89)
1w
I just said i would not expect a runner to have to stop on a force play to third. Nothing is truly absolute. Clearly, you cant run into a fielder because of w force situation
(In response to this post by BG Hokie)
1w
contact is not required.
(In response to this post by VAHokie89)
1w
(In response to this post by VAHokie89)
1w
Meaning
(In response to this post by BG Hokie)
1w
obstruction for that matter are completely meaningless.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
1w
Key Non-Contact Interference SituationsFielder and Batted Balls: Under Little League International Rules, a runner fails to give a fielder room to field a live batted ball. No physical touch is necessary if the runner's presence blocks or changes the fielder's attempt.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
1w
(In response to this post by TomTurkey)
1w
easier call. Do you have the same thing in NFHS, USA, and USSSA? I'm not sure I do and I'm known to call no contact interference fairly routinely ticking off coaches. ;-)
I just can't tell that she checked up, I think she slipped and it made it look like interference when I can't see her checking up because of the runner. But it's certainly a reasonable judgment. I just think I agree with U2 and not U3. Watch the video U2 indicates "safe" and then U3 calls it dead so they initially disagreed in real time.
** Edited by BG Hokie at 7/24/2026, 10:48:31 AM
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
1w
The fielder never had to adjust her stance.
(In response to this post by TomTurkey)
1w
I still think no call is the right call
Link:
ESPN Story
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
1w
deal ball for interference at the same time the 2nd base umpire signals "safe" meaning no interference. I do think the 3rd base umpire had the best angle but I didn't see any absolute evidence of the shortstop being hindered or impeded by the base runner.
I call no contact interference pretty regularly and it's never a popular call but I typically see the fielder having to check up or alter her path to the ball because of a runner. That didn't clearly happen here from the television angle in my opinion. Though, again, the 3rd base umpire had the best angle and thought so...
Great mechanics by those umpires all around. Plate umpire working the wedge technique. Very crisp, very good umpires.
** Edited by BG Hokie at 7/24/2026, 10:55:30 AM
(In response to this post by VTChip)
I thought the fielder checked up
Her feet went out from under her a bit. On the side angle, it appeared to me that the shortshop, umm, stopped short when the runner went in front of her. Her feet went out from under her -- IMHO that doesn't happen unless she's reacting to the runner to avoid a collision. I agree with the interference call.
(In response to this post by BG Hokie)
1w
I just can't absolutely tell that runner's action caused that girl to slip. I will say this, there is no doubt that the shortstop slipping made it look like interference. These are coin flips judgments in split seconds of real time. I'm often the one making these calls, it's fun for me to finally get to armchair from the comfort of an air conditioned room with the ability to look at it multiple times on high speed internet while sitting down with my 4th cup of coffee. That umpire had to do it in real time while on a volunteer assignment.
(In response to this post by Nova Hokie 95)
I think I've mentioned to you ...
I volunteer for the official charity of MLB umpires. They do a lot of work with kids and a number of years ago started doing training for kids to learn how to be officials and also just general leadership skills. They've started a pledge for leagues to use regarding parent and player treatment of umpires. If they don't already use it, you should suggest this in the leagues you work with.
Link:
Take the Pledge
(In response to this post by BG Hokie)
1w
some disagreements with coaches and parents but all and all I've avoided really bad moments. In approximately, 1000 games over the last 3.5 years, I've never had an ejection. 98% of the time my skin is thick and I have a good bed side manner that probably prevents coaches and parents from giving me too much business.
Richmond is a bit rougher. I'm going down there tomorrow for 7 games this weekend so maybe I'll have a different story on Monday. ;-)
(In response to this post by Nova Hokie 95)
1w
conducts himself like he is part of the "show" of the game, usually creates his own trouble.
(In response to this post by BG Hokie)
1w
distraction is irrelevant. Runners flash in front of the fielders all the time. I have never seen it called unless there is contact.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
1w
awkwardly check up because of a runner whereas college and professional players are going to get the ball no matter what, which either causes contact or forces the runner to check up themselves to avoid interference. This stuff comes up more in youth games, for sure.
(In response to this post by hokietony)
1w
games of the younger players as difficult as the speed of the games with older players.
(In response to this post by BG Hokie)
1w
The fielder altered her normal fielding motions to avoid the runner, when it's the runners job to avoid the fielder, and leave the fielder free to field the ball.
(In response to this post by hokietony)
1w
and may have adjusted her route even more if the fielder had kept coming forward. At higher levels (high school and college), the fielder would have just continued forward and allowed the contact to happen and then it is an obvious interference.
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
1w
have fielded the ball and tagged the runner, that's why the runner should go behind the fielder, makes the tag almost impossible.
There are fine points of the game that even experienced players don't know.
(In response to this post by hokietony)
1w
...if there is one.
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
1w
fielder to change her natural motions of fielding the grounder to avoid the runner.
The fielder would have continued forward motion to field that grounder. She stopped her forward motion and fell backwards to avoid contact with the runner.
** Edited by laphroaig at 7/24/2026, 4:09:25 AM
(In response to this post by VTChip)
1w
U3 had the best view and called it. As an umpire, I watch that clip and can immediately tell it is a very technically sound crew. Very crisp mechanics all around.
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
1w
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
1w
base path - can't run outside the base path!!!! oh my!!. well, yes you can in certain situations.
Here's another scenario - bases loaded with the infield up on the grass, in front of the base paths. Ball hit on the ground between 3rd baseman and shortstop, grounder goes past where the fielders were lined up, they are not fielding the ball because the ball is not in front of them anymore they are chasing the ball. 3rd baseman and runner from 2nd base have contact in the base path between 2nd base and 3rd base That's fielders interference on the runner because the fielder is not fielding the batted ball, he was chasing the batted ball.
(In response to this post by GobblerCE)
2
2hhoop3
1w
so flying a little blind. My question is how are umps taught to evaluate the interference play? Is a runner in the base path not making any abnormal attempt to distract entitled to chance to advance to the next base or does the fielder's right to cleanly field the play supercede the base runner's right to advance? I always thought it was a difficult call made even more difficult on sharply hit balls that further reduced the reaction time.
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
1w
batted ball. Contact is not required. Most code sections simply use the words hinder or impede a fielder's attempt at an initial batted ball. I've called a lot of no contact interference and it's never popular and almost always met with "my runner did nothing wrong, she's in her base path." Not relevant, the fielder was hindered by the runner.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1w
in the base path can both be wrong.
(In response to this post by BG Hokie)
1w
on 2nd base, STANDING with her foot on 2nd base, is hit by a line drive with a fielder behind ready to catch the ball - the runner is out - runners interference. Fielder has right to base path over the runner when fielding a batted ball. Runner is expected to avoid the fielder.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1w
learn something new every day. I always thought a runner standing on base was protected as opposed to the runner advancing between bases who gets hit by a ball.
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
1w
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1w
when running the bases. I only considered it to be critical on a possible tag by a fielder.
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
1w
is being attempted. Other than that, a player can run any path they choose.
(In response to this post by TomTurkey)
1w
direct path. Infield pop up on a windy day can make for an intertesting "dance" by the fielder and the runner.
(In response to this post by BG Hokie)
1w
Had some interesting instances in the youngest kids' games.
(In response to this post by BG Hokie)
1w
on a base. There are nuances of rules differences in various sections that can impact the outcome of rulings, for sure.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)