When does the base become a sanctuary?

[jmkupka]

R1 on 1B, 2 outs, fly ball to F6 that's drifting toward 2B.
R1, off on the hit, was there pretty quickly, but the last time F6 saw the base, it was empty (relevant?).
No overt action from R1, except for being there, standing still, right before F6 got there.
Collision, dropped ball.
Your call?

[RKBUmp]

Nothing, runner was in touch with the base. Unless you determine they did something intentional to interfere while standing on the base it is a live ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

R1 on 1B, 2 outs, fly ball to F6 that's drifting toward 2B.
R1, off on the hit, was there pretty quickly, but the last time F6 saw the base, it was empty (relevant?).
No overt action from R1, except for being there, standing still, right before F6 got there.
Collision, dropped ball.
Your call?

What call? There is nothing to call as long as the runner is on the base prior to the collision and does not commit an act of INT

[jmkupka]

No, that's not what I imply, just wanted to make sure the protection from INT was granted as soon as she attained the base (as long as the "attainment" itself didn't cause/contribute to the INT).
MD's response seems to indicate that's not necessarily so...

Again, don't know if it's relevant, but it's not too far of a stretch to say that R1 could see that the only way she was going to be safe at 2B was to get there in time for F6 to bump into her and fail to catch the ball.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Again, don't know if it's relevant, but it's not too far of a stretch to say that R1 could see that the only way she was going to be safe at 2B was to get there in time for F6 to bump into her and fail to catch the ball.

You could be right; but isn't it her primary goal to get there safely in case the ball isn't caught? She cannot interfere on the way, but once there, that is her sanctuary if she doesn't then do anything to interfere.

Look at it from a different perspective. If she were a single runner camped on second (so not forced to leave), would her presence have been interference? What has she done differently by being forced to advance, and doing so without interfering? Does she lose the right to be safe by staying on a base she has legally attained?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

R1 on 1B, 2 outs, fly ball to F6 that's drifting toward 2B.
R1, off on the hit, was there pretty quickly, but the last time F6 saw the base, it was empty (relevant?).
No overt action from R1, except for being there, standing still, right before F6 got there.
Collision, dropped ball.
Your call?

There is no interference on this play. I had this exact play about 10 years ago; except F6 caught the ball.

I sent this play to the SRE of NCAA at the time, she confirmed that this is not interference per NCAA - 12.19.2.1.4.1.a

[chapmaja]

Play from Michigan several years ago 1-0 game, top 7th, regional final. R1 at first. Pop fly right on top of first base. f3 goes just behind the base and attempts to catch the ball reach over R1 who is standing on the base. The ball deflects off F3's glove into foul territory. Plate Umpire rules R1 out for "defensive obstruction" (per the coaches comments in a postgame interview).

I have heard difference versions of the play and the lone video is not conclusive as to any additional action.

What I have heard is that the runner was actually leaning back into the fielder trying to make the catch. In that case the interference call would be correct. I have also heard she was just standing on the base when the ball hit the glove and bounded to foul territory.


Opinions? My only concern is that the PU made the call on the play, when if the alleged action of the runner leaning back into the fielder did occur, he should have the worst view of the two umpires.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Play from Michigan several years ago 1-0 game, top 7th, regional final. R1 at first. Pop fly right on top of first base. f3 goes just behind the base and attempts to catch the ball reach over R1 who is standing on the base. The ball deflects off F3's glove into foul territory. Plate Umpire rules R1 out for "defensive obstruction" (per the coaches comments in a postgame interview).

If the umpire used that term, probably shouldn't have been on a softball field. Sounds like something you would hear from baseball.

I have heard difference versions of the play and the lone video is not conclusive as to any additional action.

What I have heard is that the runner was actually leaning back into the fielder trying to make the catch. In that case the interference call would be correct. I have also heard she was just standing on the base when the ball hit the glove and bounded to foul territory.


Opinions? My only concern is that the PU made the call on the play, when if the alleged action of the runner leaning back into the fielder did occur, he should have the worst view of the two umpires.

If the INT was intentional, the call was correct, but I agree, if the runner's action was as described, it seems the BU would have a better angle, but that does not prevent the PU from making such a call.

From NCAA 2016-2017 Softball Rules:

12.19.2.1.4.1 When the defensive player, while watching the flight

of a ball, bumps a base runner who is standing on a base and fails

to make a catch on a catchable ball, the base runner shall not be

called out unless the hindrance is intentional. A base runner must

vacate any space needed by a fielder to make a play on a batted

ball, unless the base runner has contact with a legally occupied

base when the hindrance occurs. This is an exception to the rule

that defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the

ball anywhere on the playing field without being hindered.