Interference, or no? How many outs?

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by teebob21

The play at second was not particularly close, regular hammer out. The contact was made by R1 after she was retired.

This play generated a lot of discussion this week. I know, HTBT, and I'll post my ruling next post. I wanted to see what the board thought.

Does ASA softball have the same comment as OBR does regarding interference by a retired runner? Continuing to run the bases is not interference by that act alone. Sliding into a base is continuing to run the bases.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Does ASA softball have the same comment as OBR does regarding interference by a retired runner? Continuing to run the bases is not interference by that act alone. Sliding into a base is continuing to run the bases.

I believe the statement in asa is continuing to run the bases after being put out and drawing a throw may be considered an act of interference.

[BoomerSooner]

I don't think there is a call to be made here (except for the out on the on R1), unless by chance the slide was malicious or illegal in some way. Without seeing the slide, my first inclination is to assume it is a routine slide where the play is close enough for the runner to justify sliding.

That said, after reading the OP again, I could see an interpretation of the play that has the runner initiating the slide late (as in too close to the bag such that it is interpreted as malicious) or unnecessarily sliding (as in the runner had time to stop and peel away or kneel to get avoid interfering). In those cases, you could call interference. My gut is still telling me this wasn't one of those instances and thus not interference.

[teebob21]

Looks like I am on the losing end of this one. I ruled INT, runner and BR out. It seemed pretty cut-and-dried to me. This was the most obvious attempt to take out a fielder with the ball I'd ever seen in JO play. It seems odd to me that a runner sliding hard into a fielder and knocking her down, preventing a play, is not a case of INT when a runner on her feet who doesn't even make contact with a fielder can be called for INT.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Looks like I am on the losing end of this one. I ruled INT, runner and BR out. It seemed pretty cut-and-dried to me. This was the most obvious attempt to take out a fielder with the ball I'd ever seen in JO play. It seems odd to me that a runner sliding hard into a fielder and knocking her down, preventing a play, is not a case of INT when a runner on her feet who doesn't even make contact with a fielder can be called for INT.

Well, you are up against the axiom that a legal slide is always legal contact. Was the slide legal? NFHS defines an illegal slide; ASA does not. If she was sliding into the fielder rather than sliding to acquire the base... ?? You saw it, we didn't.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Looks like I am on the losing end of this one. I ruled INT, runner and BR out. It seemed pretty cut-and-dried to me. This was the most obvious attempt to take out a fielder with the ball I'd ever seen in JO play. It seems odd to me that a runner sliding hard into a fielder and knocking her down, preventing a play, is not a case of INT when a runner on her feet who doesn't even make contact with a fielder can be called for INT.

Now, based on this comment, "the most obvious attempt to take out a fielder with the ball I'd ever seen in JO play." I would have to say 1) It is still a HTBT play and 2) I would have to question if the slide was legal or if it was malicious contact. Again, a HTBT situation to really make the call.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Now, based on this comment, "the most obvious attempt to take out a fielder with the ball I'd ever seen in JO play." I would have to say 1) It is still a HTBT play and 2) I would have to question if the slide was legal or if it was malicious contact. Again, a HTBT situation to really make the call.

RE 1) Yup.

RE 2) The slide was....probably legal. As other posters have pointed out, ASA doesn't define the elements of legality of a slide. The foot was high, but not obviously illegal or malicious. The runner did not contact the front of the bag, and made no effort to do so that I could see. The runner's foot went directly at the foot of the fielder in the middle portion of the bag. We'd had rain and the bases were slick. The fielder went down like a sack of potatoes. At game speed, it looked bad. Borderline bad. But certainly not enough to eject for MC/USC.

The INT call was probably a kicked call. I won't make it again in this situation.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by teebob21

RE 1) Yup.

RE 2) The slide was....probably legal. As other posters have pointed out, ASA doesn't define the elements of legality of a slide. The foot was high, but not obviously illegal or malicious. The runner did not contact the front of the bag, and made no effort to do so that I could see. The runner's foot went directly at the foot of the fielder in the middle portion of the bag. We'd had rain and the bases were slick. The fielder went down like a sack of potatoes. At game speed, it looked bad. Borderline bad. But certainly not enough to eject for MC/USC.

The INT call was probably a kicked call. I won't make it again in this situation.

Based on the description of the play here, I think I would have made the same INT call if it were me.

"The foot was high." and "The runner did not contact the front of the bag." These to me are indications that she was indeed attempting to "take out" the fielder, rather than slide into the base.

The problem is the ASA book does not define a slide, or an illegal slide. This leaves the judgment up to the umpire.

I think your judgment becomes key in this. Was the player attempting to illegally contact the defensive player, thus hindering her attempt to make the throw? If, in your judgment, this was her intent, not just to slide to the base, you were correct in calling interference. I am using Rule Supplement 33 / Definition of Interference as my basis for this decision. The action clearly hindered the fielders attempt to make a throw.

I think, based on the descriptions given, that I would have called the same thing.

Had the runner slide with the foot down and contacted the front part of the base, there is no question, she was sliding into the base, but when she slides and does not contact the front of the base, we get into the area of her intent, and that also brings in the judgment of the umpire.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

I believe the statement in asa is continuing to run the bases after being put out and drawing a throw may be considered an act of interference.

This applies if she runs to a base AFTER being put out and someone throws the ball to try to put her out again. Nothing like this scenario.

[Andy]

ASA Rule Supplement 13....Crash Interference

This talks about remaining upright and crashing into a fielder with the ball.
There is a statement in the RS which reads.....A runner may slide into the fielder.

As described, I have nothing on the OP

[teebob21]

Andy, what about RS #33? "Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered."

Also, 8-7-P.

[RKBUmp]

Every act of contact on the field is not necessarily interference or obstruction. If F4 had just received the throw from F6 and was turning to throw, what are we talking, maybe 1/2 to 3/4 of a second tops? The runner would be fairly close to 2nd at that point and cannot just disappear. Are you expecting the runner to just give themselves up on what may appear to be a routine out? What if F6 didnt field the ball cleanly? What if F4 bobbled the ball while catching it? The runner did exactly what they should have and slid into 2nd base. Contact is going to happen on a softball field and as I said, it is not always interference or obstruction. The case book is full of situations where it is neither and is just playing action.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Andy, what about RS #33? "Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered."

Also, 8-7-P.

You need an act of interference by the runner. A runner legally sliding into a base is not an act of interference.

If you believe the slide was illegal and/or malicious, you should have also ejected the runner for unsportsmanlike conduct.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You need an act of interference by the runner. A runner legally sliding into a base is not an act of interference.

In other words, while legally sliding and making contact, intent is required, not just hindering the fielder. In other cases, the act of hindering/impeding/confusing is enough to rule INT, even without contact or intent.

It's not 100% logically consistent, and it's not the way I previously interpreted the rule, but I can live with this interpretation. This philosophy also answers my question about the non-contact INT scenarios, too.

[Umpire@1]

You have nothing but the out at 2nd. And as usual, everyone starts all the scenarios. Just address the play.