[IRISHMAFIA]

Okay, I think we pretty much have the NFHS ruling that this should be called interference by interpretation if nothing else.

Now, I'm going to review it in accordance with ASA's rulebook.

Rule 1 Base on Balls. A base on balls permits a batter to gain first base without liability to be put out and is awarded to a batter by the umpire when four pitches are judged to be out of the strike zone.

8.1.C The Batter Becomes a Batter-Runner when four balls have been called by the umpire. The batter-runner is awarded first base.

8.2.E Batter-Runner is Out when he runs outside the three-foot (0.91m) lane and, in the judgement of the umpire, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base;


8.2.F Batter-Runner is Out when the batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box, makes contact with a fair btted ball before reaching first base, or (fast pitch only) interferes with a dropped third strike. If this interference, in the umpire's judgement, is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the runner closest to home plate shall be called out. A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference.

POE #28. A.3 Runner interference includes intentionally interfering with a thrown ball.

-------------------------------------------------------

I think ASA makes it clear that for an offensive player to interfere with a thrown ball, the umpire must judge his/her intention to interfere with the play.

Of course, that doesn't mean that getting hit is the back means it is unintentional. If you see a runner deviate from a direct path into an obvious throwing lane, that could be construed as intent to interfere with a thrown ball.

This is just the way I look at the play and I'm sure there are others out there who will disagree, but I would feel comfortable using the information above in making my ruling.