The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2018, 08:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 159
BR collides with F3 after catch

This happened in my game a couple weeks ago. NFHS rules in effect. Would like input on how you see this play.

Runner at 3rd, one out, fly ball to F3 who is in foul territory when
she catches the ball reaching over the orange base.

The ball is in the air long enough to allow the batter-runner to be
close enough to F3 at the time of th catch to collide with F3 just after
the catch, knocking F3 to the ground. The collision appeared to be
incidental and not intentional.

Though the runner at 3B would arguably not have attempted to advance, being very heads-up, she immediately broke for home from 3B when F3 was knocked over and easily scored.

Had the collision not occured the ball is arguably just returned to the
pitcher and no "play" would have occurred. But because of the
collision, the runner had an opportunity to advance and F3 could not recover quickly enough to make a play on runner.

Is this interference on the BR, and if so what NFHS rule would you apply?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2018, 09:27am
Oklahoma Official
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 5
Ball is dead on the interference, so the run can't score. Since there was not a play on the runner absent the interference, I'd send her back to 3rd. 2 outs.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2018, 10:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrischard View Post
Ball is dead on the interference, so the run can't score. Since there was not a play on the runner absent the interference, I'd send her back to 3rd. 2 outs.
If you kill the ball for interference then you have to get the corresponding out.

If the runner at 3B was really alert she would have stayed right on the bag to make sure there was no play to interfere with.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2018, 02:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 159
Youngump, that would be expecting R@3 to think like an umpire. Perhaps the coach should have known that, but the runner?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 18, 2018, 02:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post

If the runner at 3B was really alert she would have stayed right on the bag to make sure there was no play to interfere with.
Why would they stay on the bag after the 1st baseman falls down? What do they have to lose? I can tell you what they have to gain--a run scored if the interference call is not made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTQ_Blue View Post
Youngump, that would be expecting R@3 to think like an umpire. Perhaps the coach should have known that, but the runner?
Agree. Too much to expect from a kid.....and 99% of coaches.

Last edited by Mountaincoach; Fri May 18, 2018 at 03:00pm.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 12:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTQ_Blue View Post
This
Dead ball INT; BR out, any and all runners return to base held at TOP. Easy peasy.

I can't give you a specific rules cite, as my books are packed, but the Fed Dead Ball Chart in the middle of the book is a great place to start looking for the rule number.
__________________
Powder blue since 1998. Longtime forum lurker.
Umpiring Goals: Call the knee strike accurately (getting the low pitch since 2017)/NCAA D1 postseason/ISF-WBSC Certification/Nat'l Indicator Fraternity(completed)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 07:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: North Texas
Posts: 31
If interference is called after the catch then it's interference by a retired batter/runner.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 07:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Derry, NH
Posts: 1,043
This is a case of a retired (batter) runner interfering.

Whenever INT is called, someone has to be out.

The BR was out on the catch by F3, then INT'd.

If INT is called, are we calling it on the BR and just calling her out? This ignores the fact that the catch was made before INT occurred.

If you don't call INT, what rule allows you to send the runner back to third base?

Try NFHS Case Play 8.6.18 Sit. B.
__________________
Ted
USA & NFHS Softball
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 07:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Derry, NH
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebob21 View Post
Dead ball INT; BR out, any and all runners return to base held at TOP. Easy peasy.
Runners return at time of INT.
__________________
Ted
USA & NFHS Softball
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 09:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 159
Tru n Blue, I read the casebook play (thanks for pointing it out). In that play, the runner, R1, committed to try to score before the BR acted to prevent F3 from making a play on R1. Clearly, the BRs action adversely affected F3 in making that play. In my game, R1 was going nowhere when that catch was made by F3, i.e., no play was in the offing. So the collision did not hinder F3 from making a play on a runner in motion like the casebook example, rather, it allowed R1 to go in motion.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 12:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Derry, NH
Posts: 1,043
Well, since it was a foul pop up, the runner from third wouldn't (shouldn't) have "been in motion". If anything, she probably retreated to the base in order to tag up.

I agree that on a routine pop up to an infielder, a runner is unlikely to try and tag up.

However, once F3 was wiped out (accidentally, inadvertently, unintentionally), now the runner made the decision to risk advancing. So once the fielder went down, as a result of a retired (batter) runner INT, we have nothing?

So in the case play I referenced, the ruling is:
If, in the umpire's judgment, B2 hindered F3's play on R1, R1 is declared out.

I can't see the defensive coach being quiet about this if the run is allowed to score given that his fielder was knocked over.

And I don't know how you return the runner to third base if INT wasn't called.

So how do you reconcile this?
__________________
Ted
USA & NFHS Softball
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 01:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu View Post

If you don't call INT, what rule allows you to send the runner back to third base?

Try NFHS Case Play 8.6.18 Sit. B.
8.6.13.

Since the rule does not specifically address this issue, I could see how this rule could be construed to kill the ball and return runners.

This is admittedly a stretch. Then again if the word "maliciously" was removed from Art 14......but that would also be a stretch.

My issue with the play and applicable rules is that there was no interference. As noted, the runner did not break for home until F3 was knocked to the ground, so at the time of the collision, there was no play with which to interfere.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 01:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 159
I was PU. Initially, I ruled the ball dead and sent R1 back to 3rd. My partner then approached me and said that that was not the correct call and convinced me to call interference by a retired runner, which meant that R1 was also out.

I agree with you that only because the runner chose to advance after the collision, was the collision interference. If the runner had stayed put, no interference. I didn't like having to make that call, but I think my partner was right, by the book.

If I ever have another play like that, I'd be tempted to just say that the ball was dead at the time of the collision because it was necessary to check on the well-being of F3. Then, I could just put R1 back at 3B.

I know that's stretching things a bit, but I think that interference by a retired BR, with an additional out is unnecessarily punitive, even if its the right call.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 01:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 159
Irishmafia, could it be said that the collision altered the action of F3 in the immediate act of making a play on BR because F3 had not completed the play on BR (voluntary release of ball from glove) at the time of the collision. The catch had occurred but not the release from glove. That could justify killing the ball.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 19, 2018, 01:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,137
Interference requires a play to be interfered with.

But, the knock down hindered the fielder's ability to make a play on R1 when R1 advanced or even if R1 did not advance. *

Some interference instances have a delayed effect, not necessarily immediate. It looks like this is that type of case and so interference applies.
The call should have been at the moment of collision, then judge whether the possible double play fits.

Hard to call, hard to explain, but "big bucks".


* Think pickoff or throw home to prevent the score.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Runner collides with on deck batter Gmoore Softball 18 Wed Apr 23, 2014 07:04pm
fair/foul - then catch/no-catch David Emerling Baseball 36 Tue May 07, 2013 08:58am
Ref Collides with Player who has the Ball cshs81 Basketball 5 Fri Feb 08, 2008 07:54am
Catch or no catch(foul ball)? illiniwek8 Baseball 2 Sat Mar 25, 2006 07:16pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1