Is this interference? Thanks.

jamesshank

ASA fastpitch...3-1 count, runner on second...next pitch in the dirt for ball 4 (caroms off the catcher rolls back toward the mound)...BR tosses the bat and quickly heads to first, R2 sees the pitch in the dirt and takes off for 3rd...the BR is hit by the ball as she runs to first that causes the catcher another split second to recover the ball and her throw to 3rd is late, runner is safe. Is this offensive interference, should the BR be out and the runner returned to 2nd? Thanks for your input

josephrt1

Is the batter-runner (BR) hit by the ball rolling in the dirt or by the throw from the catcher. My opinions:

If BR is hit by or she runs into the ball on the ground, I think we have interference, BR out and R2 returned to last base touched. (not sure of exact refernce)

If BR is hit by thrown ball, I think we have a live ball, no interference. Batter received ball 4 and was now trotting off to 1st base and doing nothing illegal. Catcher's throw needs to avoid the batter-runner legally running the bases.

teebob21

If the batter-runner is hit by an uncaught pitch while advancing to 1B (ball 4, bounces off the catcher), I can't find rule support for an INT out. I've been up and down the rulebook (Rule 8 for the curious), but I will happily defer to anyone who can cite a reason to call an out here.

However, if there is a loose ball or a throw that is intentionally interfered with, now we can call an out.

CecilOne

teebob21 wrote
If the batter-runner is hit by an uncaught pitch while advancing to 1B (ball 4, bounces off the catcher), I can't find rule support for an INT out. I've been up and down the rulebook (Rule 8 for the curious), but I will happily defer to anyone who can cite a reason to call an out here.

However, if there is a loose ball or a throw that is intentionally interfered with, now we can call an out.

Why does it have to be intentional if the BR hindered the catcher access to the ball? Is it just the usual Catcher/BR can't always avoid in close proximity?

jmkupka

I'm guessing the rationale is, F2 had her chance at fielding it cleanly (on the pitch) and booted it.

AtlUmpSteve

teebob21 wrote
If the batter-runner is hit by an uncaught pitch while advancing to 1B (ball 4, bounces off the catcher), I can't find rule support for an INT out. I've been up and down the rulebook (Rule 8 for the curious), but I will happily defer to anyone who can cite a reason to call an out here.

However, if there is a loose ball or a throw that is intentionally interfered with, now we can call an out.

CecilOne wrote
Why does it have to be intentional if the BR hindered the catcher access to the ball? Is it just the usual Catcher/BR can't always avoid in close proximity?

jmkupka wrote
I'm guessing the rationale is, F2 had her chance at fielding it cleanly (on the pitch) and booted it.

[For your consideration]

While not explicitly covered under 8.2-F(6), which applies to a dropped third strike, how/why do you believe this should be handled differently? F2 had the same chance to field an uncaught third strike as the uncaught ball four, so that cannot be the rationale; and the offense has, in the same way, interfered with the defense's opportunity to make a "play". In that case, it doesn't need to be intentional, it must simply be an act that interferes; why not the same treatment for this?

[/devil's advocate]

Manny A

To me, this is nothing different than when a runner inadvertently contacts a loose ball on the field. These include a batted ball that a fielder deflected, a loose ball that a fielder failed to catch (e.g., F4 drops F2's throw on a steal of second base, and the runner slides into the ball, kicking it into the outfield), etc. No foul, play on.

Interference by a BR is covered under 8-2-E thru H. There is nothing there that talks of interfering with a loose ball except for a dropped third strike, when the batter-runner is liable to be put out. This was a walk, so she is awarded first base; there's no possibility to make a play on her going to first.

CecilOne

Manny A wrote
To me, this is nothing different than when a runner inadvertently contacts a loose ball on the field. These include a batted ball that a fielder deflected, a loose ball that a fielder failed to catch (e.g., F4 drops F2's throw on a steal of second base, and the runner slides into the ball, kicking it into the outfield), etc. No foul, play on.

Interference by a BR is covered under 8-2-E thru H. There is nothing there that talks of interfering with a loose ball except for a dropped third strike, when the batter-runner is liable to be put out. This was a walk, so she is awarded first base; there's no possibility to make a play on her going to first.

OP: "causes the catcher another split second to recover the ball and her throw to 3rd is late, runner is safe"

Manny A

CecilOne wrote
OP: "causes the catcher another split second to recover the ball and her throw to 3rd is late, runner is safe"

Yeah, I read that. Sorry, but there is no rule support to penalize the BR with interference when she accidentally contacts a pitch in the dirt for Ball Four that eludes the catcher. Just like there is no rule support to penalize a runner who slides into home and kicks a loose ball that the catcher did not secure, allowing other runners to advance.

The only case where the BR is held accountable here is on an uncaught third strike because she is liable to be put out; in that case, she is ruled out. Explain to me how you can rule a BR out for the exact same thing when she's been awarded first base on Ball Four? Unless there's a case play or an interpretation in the Rules Supplement that says a BR running to first base on a Walk must avoid the ball that the catcher failed to catch, I've got nothing here.

jamesshank

for the great discussion

IRISHMAFIA

AtlUmpSteve wrote
[For your consideration]

While not explicitly covered under 8.2-F(6), which applies to a dropped third strike, how/why do you believe this should be handled differently? F2 had the same chance to field an uncaught third strike as the uncaught ball four, so that cannot be the rationale; and the offense has, in the same way, interfered with the defense's opportunity to make a "play". In that case, it doesn't need to be intentional, it must simply be an act that interferes; why not the same treatment for this?

[/devil's advocate]

Because the rule you are citing is just as wrong as INT on the play offered here. Just saying..