Interference, or no? How many outs?

[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.

[BlueDevilRef]

If it was bang bang at the bag, I'd be inclined to agree with most of you to play on. But I read and OP has verified, runner had time to not make contact. So, again, I've got two outs and with the one on the board, that makes three.

[RKBUmp]

Where does the OP say anything about he runner having time to avoid contact? F4 received the ball from f6 and was turning to throw when contact was made. Mayeb 3/4 of a second tops?

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

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.

Not necessarily intent, but an act of INT. An example offered in 2007 UIC Clinic after ASA removed "intent" from most of the INT rule included a runner going from 1st to 2nd on a ground ball in the infield and F4 relaying a throw to get the back end of a deuce. In scenario A, the advancing runner, maintaining his path, was hit by the throw. In scenario B, the advancing runner fell and then stood up and was hit by the throw.

In scenario A, the ruling was a live ball, play on. The runner as simply attempting to advance as is expected. Just because F4 put out that runner, we cannot expect the retired runner to just disappear. In scenario B, the ruling was INT as the retired runner was no longer attempting to advance and the area was clear for F4 to attempt the put out at 1B. Once down, the retired runner has a duty to avoid interfering with any further play.

Also, the thought of veering left or right would be an act of INT should the retired runner and defender not guess which way the other was going. If the retired runner stays the course, the defense will know exactly where to not throw the ball to get the out at 1B. Basically the same parameter used at the plate so the catcher knows, in advance, where s/he needs to throw the ball in response to an attempt to steal 3B

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by teebob21

In other words, while legally sliding and making contact, ....

... nothing else is required to be legal. Something else is required for it to be illegal, something you would judge as an act of interference.

Repeat after me:
A legal slide is legal contact.
A legal slide is legal contact.
A legal slide is legal contact.




And, as Mike stated, if the slide was illegal, then you also have unsportsmanlike conduct.

[Umpire@1]

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

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by teebob21

ASA 16A. Three umpires. Loser's bracket game, eight teams remaining on Saturday. I am U3.

1 out, R1 on 1B. A relatively routine grounder is hit to F6 and thrown to 2B to F4 for the force out. As F4 turns and begins to release the ball from her glove to throw to 1B, R1 slides into 2B, contacting F4's feet (still on the top of the base) with her feet, and knocking F4 to the ground hard.

EDIT for clarification: The BR is still two+ steps from 1B when this occurs.

What is your call?

This is a HTBT situation, but it does raise a couple questions as well. You said the fielders foot was still on the base, correct. Was the slide a normal slide into the base, or was she sliding attempting to overslide the base and contact the fielder.

Based on what I read as the description of the play, I have nothing on this play at any level. She was doing exactly what a runner is expected to do, slide into the base so she is out of the way of a potential throw to first base.

As and umpire (who worked the CWS) once told me, a runner can't simply disappear. As long as she did nothing to intentionally contact the fielder (leg up, slide away from the base, ect), I have nothing.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

If it was bang bang at the bag, I'd be inclined to agree with most of you to play on. But I read and OP has verified, runner had time to not make contact. So, again, I've got two outs and with the one on the board, that makes three.

How long would a player have to "turn" the play at second base? This act should take no longer than a second tops from when she steps on the base in possession and she has turned away from the base. How long does it take a runner to initiate a slide and slide into the base, that action, even at the top levels of baseball and softball takes longer than it should take turning the ball once you touch the base. Once you initiate a sliding action, it is very difficult to pull out of a slide and is actually a danger risk to do so.

Again, this is a HTBT play, but barring any other action that I am not reading from this situation I have nothing but a force out at second base.

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

Please be more specific in your citation of RS 33.

OP clearly noted there was nothing obviously wrong with the slide. It should be noted the sliding into a player during the execution of a play is not illegal in ASA. For that matter, it is a permissible action, by rule, to avoid an INT call for crashing into the fielder with the ball.