The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 17, 2018, 12:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest/plains
Posts: 400
BR interferes with play at home

USA

R1 at 3rd with 1 out. Ball 4 to B2 gets past F2. B2 backs out of the right hand box as F2 fields the ball rebounding from the backstop and R1 attempts to advance to home. B2 realizes it was ball 4 and starts to advance to first such that b2 and f2 collide on top of home plate just before r1 touches home.

1 out? If so, who (and where are runners placed)? 2 outs?

Curious if there is a difference between rule sets on this play?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 17, 2018, 07:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reffing Rev. View Post
USA

R1 at 3rd with 1 out. Ball 4 to B2 gets past F2. B2 backs out of the right hand box as F2 fields the ball rebounding from the backstop and R1 attempts to advance to home. B2 realizes it was ball 4 and starts to advance to first such that b2 and f2 collide on top of home plate just before r1 touches home.

1 out? If so, who (and where are runners placed)? 2 outs?

Curious if there is a difference between rule sets on this play?
Assuming the sequence is as noted, and in your judgment the collision prevented F2 from making play on R1 prior to scoring, the only rule I can find that addresses such INT is 8.2.G which rules both BR & R out
__________________
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
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 17, 2018, 07:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest/plains
Posts: 400
Does intent affect this? It was obvious there was no intent. If intent is a considering factor and there is no intent then what would the result be?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 17, 2018, 07:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reffing Rev. View Post
Does intent affect this? It was obvious there was no intent. If intent is a considering factor and there is no intent then what would the result be?
Depends on how the umpire interprets the wording.

The batter runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a play at home plate in an attempt to prevent an out at home plate.
EFFECT: The runner is also called out

If you dismiss this rule, I cannot find a rule which even affords an INT call on the BR

Of course, there is always 8.2.Q (collision), but I find that a stretch to apply it here
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.

Last edited by IRISHMAFIA; Sun Jun 17, 2018 at 07:48am.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 17, 2018, 12:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 120
8.2.G is the rule for a batter runner but it includes the wording "in an attempt ot prevent an out at home plate"

What if it was not an "attempt to prevent" but rather just a mistake by a batter runner not knowing what to do and stepping in the way? I'd be inclined to not call the runner out, but only the batter-runner. But as stated this rule doesn't say you can just call the batter-runner out if you do not think it was an attempt. it only say what ot do if you DO think it was an attempt to prevent the out.

The closest related rule, and the one I would probably default to is for the batter. There is not much difference between a batter and batter-runner in this situation. The same situation could have arisen if it was only ball 3. The batter could get in the way and we can just call the batter out and put runner back on base if we the umpire judge this was not an intent to prevent an out at the plate. i am referring to Rule 7.6.U and its effect.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 17, 2018, 01:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephrt1 View Post
8.2.G is the rule for a batter runner but it includes the wording "in an attempt ot prevent an out at home plate"

What if it was not an "attempt to prevent" but rather just a mistake by a batter runner not knowing what to do and stepping in the way? I'd be inclined to not call the runner out, but only the batter-runner. But as stated this rule doesn't say you can just call the batter-runner out if you do not think it was an attempt. it only say what ot do if you DO think it was an attempt to prevent the out.

The closest related rule, and the one I would probably default to is for the batter. There is not much difference between a batter and batter-runner in this situation. The same situation could have arisen if it was only ball 3. The batter could get in the way and we can just call the batter out and put runner back on base if we the umpire judge this was not an intent to prevent an out at the plate. i am referring to Rule 7.6.U and its effect.
Once you have a batter/runner, anything under rule 7 no longer applies.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 17, 2018, 07:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephrt1 View Post
8.2.G is the rule for a batter runner but it includes the wording "in an attempt ot prevent an out at home plate"

What if it was not an "attempt to prevent" but rather just a mistake by a batter runner not knowing what to do and stepping in the way? I'd be inclined to not call the runner out, but only the batter-runner. But as stated this rule doesn't say you can just call the batter-runner out if you do not think it was an attempt. it only say what ot do if you DO think it was an attempt to prevent the out.
I understand and noted it was a matter of interpretation. Then again, if the BR had immediately departed for 1B, I would agree, but that did not happen.

Quote:

The closest related rule, and the one I would probably default to is for the batter. There is not much difference between a batter and batter-runner in this situation. The same situation could have arisen if it was only ball 3. The batter could get in the way and we can just call the batter out and put runner back on base if we the umpire judge this was not an intent to prevent an out at the plate. i am referring to Rule 7.6.U and its effect.
Not possible. By rule, you no longer have a batter on the field, but a batter-runner. You have a batter due up next, but that isn't the player which prevented F2 from making a play.
__________________
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
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 17, 2018, 09:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Not possible. By rule, you no longer have a batter on the field, but a batter-runner. You have a batter due up next, but that isn't the player which prevented F2 from making a play.
OK, understood. But what do you do if you don't think the batter-runner got in the way in "an attempt to prevent an out at the plate"?

__________________________________________________ _______

There are 2 other possible ways of supporting only the batter-runner being called out with interference at the plate.

1. Rule 8.2 is headlined as "The batter-runner is out". When you then go to 8.2.G it states if this is an attempt to prevent an out at home plate Effect; "the runner is also out." Because the word also is used, this implies, but could have been more clearly stated, that the batter runner is out "when the batter runner interferes"

2. RS 33-A.1: reads: Runner interference includes - A runner or batter-runner who interferes with a fielder executing a play.

I would interpret both of these statements to have the batter runner out for the situation in the OP, and if the umpire judges the batter-runner attempted to prevent the out at home plate, a 2nd out would be called on the runner (8.2.G).

Last edited by josephrt1; Mon Jun 18, 2018 at 07:49am.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 18, 2018, 07:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephrt1 View Post
OK, understood. But what do you do if you don't think the batter-runner got in the way in "an attempt to prevent an out at the plate"?

__________________________________________________ _______

There are 2 other possible ways of supporting only the batter-runner being called out with interference at the plate.

1. Rule 8.2 is headlined as "The batter-runner is out". When you then go to 8.2.G it states if this is an attempt to prevent an out at home plate Effect; "the runner is also out." Because the word also is used, this implies, but could have been more clearly stated, that the batter runner is out "when the batter runner interferes"

2. RS 33-A.1: reads: Runner interference includes - A runner or batter-runner who interferes with a fielder executing a play.

I would interpret both of these statements to have the batter runner out for the situation in the OP, and if the umpire judges the batter-runner attempted to prevent the out at home plate, a 2nd out would be called on the runner (8.2.G).
I don't disagree, but my point is there is no rule to suppert the RS. An RS should be supported by a rule.
__________________
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
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 18, 2018, 01:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
I don't disagree, but my point is there is no rule to suppert the RS. An RS should be supported by a rule.
Agreed. It would be nice to see 8.2.F add a statement like this: "7. with a play at home plate"
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 18, 2018, 07:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
I am going to throw this out for sugar and giggles:

I am going to start at the point where the B/R realizes that the Pitch was Ball 4 and that she is entitled to at least 1B and to continue on to 2B at her own risk. F1 does not have the Ball when F1 and the B/R collide. I do not care about the Runner on 3B who is now trying to score. In my humble opinion why are we considering charging B/R with Interference against F1 when we should be considering charging F1 with Obstruction against the B/R?

MTD, Sr.
The way I read your situation is different than the original post. In the OP there is the appearance of a play about to occur at the plate. In that case there are rules and rule supplements covering that situation that call for at least 1 out. In the situation you propose, if there is not an apparent play at the plate, I would agree with your obstruction call.

Completely inverse play: A couple of years ago there was a case study, maybe presented at ASA clinic; Catcher retrieved a dropped 3rd strike and was standing on the plate in act of throwing to 1st base when runner from 3rd slides into catcher and knocks her down. The instruction was this was interference with a fielder in possession of the ball in the act of throwing. Runner sliding in is out.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 18, 2018, 10:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephrt1 View Post
The way I read your situation is different than the original post. In the OP there is the appearance of a play about to occur at the plate. In that case there are rules and rule supplements covering that situation that call for at least 1 out. In the situation you propose, if there is not an apparent play at the plate, I would agree with your obstruction call.

Completely inverse play: A couple of years ago there was a case study, maybe presented at ASA clinic; Catcher retrieved a dropped 3rd strike and was standing on the plate in act of throwing to 1st base when runner from 3rd slides into catcher and knocks her down. The instruction was this was interference with a fielder in possession of the ball in the act of throwing. Runner sliding in is out.
For MTD's play, the catcher didn't have the ball, so it doesn't matter if she was about to get it. (That's not an opinion on the rules just your response.)
For your inverse play, the clinic got it wrong. If the catcher was on the plate and slid into this is interference by a runner who has scored. She can't be out. It's got to be the lead runner who is out here.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 18, 2018, 10:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
For MTD's play, the catcher didn't have the ball, so it doesn't matter if she was about to get it. (That's not an opinion on the rules just your response.)
Not sure what you are commenting on. I agreed with MTD that in the play he described it would be obstruction. [also there was no discussion of "about to get it". Only confirming that in his play there was no apparent play at the plate because as he stated, the catcher did not have the ball, thus obstruction rather than interference.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 19, 2018, 11:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephrt1 View Post
Not sure what you are commenting on. I agreed with MTD that in the play he described it would be obstruction. [also there was no discussion of "about to get it". Only confirming that in his play there was no apparent play at the plate because as he stated, the catcher did not have the ball, thus obstruction rather than interference.
You wrote that the difference between MTD's play and this was the play "about to occur at the plate." I visualized that as the catcher about to catch the ball for a tag. On re-reading it I think you just meant the catcher was about to tag the runner coming from third.
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
Dropped bat interferes with a play at the plate... Dakota Softball 8 Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:05am
Play at home Rachel Softball 10 Sat May 28, 2005 01:05pm
Play at home rodneyw Baseball 12 Tue May 24, 2005 02:14pm
10U play at home Dakota Softball 4 Tue Jun 08, 2004 06:17am
Play at Home TCBuffy Softball 6 Thu May 29, 2003 11:05am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1