Which case play or clarification are you talking about?

My rule book under RS 33 doesn't mention the word "intentionally". You may be referencing an older rule book.

So I think this is the play he mentioned. It's in the April 2012 Plays and Clarifications on the USA Softball website.

So how do you judge that a runner interferes with a thrown ball without doing something intentional, like waving the arms or throwing the Reggie Jackson hip at the ball? Well, interference requires the offensive player to make an act that interferes. How is simply running the bases considered an act? Is this runner supposed to stop trying to advance directly to her base because she might get hit in the shoulder with the throw? That's preposterous.

Now, if she had started running to second base well inside the diamond so that she puts herself between F3 and second base (similar to the batter-runner in the case play running well into fair territory instead of going into the runner's lane), that might be an issue. There's no need, in that case, to judge whether or not the runner did it intentionally.

But going straight to second base from first base? Nope, no way that's an act that causes interference.

Manny, I saw that play but wasn't sure it was the one he was talking about. That play doesn't say being hit by a throw is interference, it says if the umpire judges the runner committed interference. As you said, simply running the bases is NOT interference, it requires some act to be committed other than running straight to the base.

You are correct, sorry. the R/S does not say intentional.

Here we go again.

You are working your 11th national and this is a question?

Try reading the definition of interference, the word "act" is part of the definition.

And, while you are at it, check the definition of obstruction and see if you can find the word or requirement of an "act" of obstruction.

Try being helpful instead of condescending.

I was asking because the removal of the wording about intentionality makes it difficult. I have a hard time coming up with a situation where an offensive player might unintentionally interfere with a thrown ball; thus, my reason for asking the question. The only situation I can think of is a runner who has been put out trying to get out of the way but ends up in the way as a result of his action.

"Obstruction is the act of a defensive team member..."

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I was umpiring a men's fp tourn this weekend.

Yes. That is the play I was referencing. And no, it is not clear what is meant. (I think this is the ONLY play in the rules clarifications where they equivocate on whether a play IS or IS NOT ruled a particular way. Strange.) Technically running IS an act. We expect defensive players to know where runners are to avoid obstructing a runner. Why not expect runners to know where the ball is to avoid interfering with a throw?

My point throughout this thread has been: Why are we so hard on fielders but so easy on runners? There is no difference in the wording of the definitions, so why is one officiated more strictly than the other? (I confirmed that both definitions contain wording "the act of....") Consider a fielder and runner both converging at 2nd base. In case 1, the fielder collides with the runner without the ball. (His act was running to the bag for a throw.) In case 2, the runner gets hit by the throw before arriving at the base. (His act was also running to the bag.) Why should the fielder be called for obstruction, when his act was just as unintentional as the runner's? The fielder's act (running to the base) impeded the runner, and the runner's act (running to the base) interfered with the throw. Same act, different ruling?

Why is that preposterous? The runner is supposed to stop trying to advance directly to her base because she might get hit in the legs with the batted ball. The only difference is how the ball got there. We do, after all, call the batter-runner out for interference if she gets hit while outside the running lane with a ball thrown to first, no matter her intention, if it actually interferes with the play.

If no intent is required then all a fielder has to do is intentionally hit a runner with the ball to get an out.

You said "intentionally." If a defensive player intentionally throws at a runner, that player can be ejected.

Why does no one actually address the rules involved? Is it too difficult?

The rule does not say: "Interference is an act other than running straight to the base...."

It says: "Interference is an act...."

Go ahead and call it interference if you want. You have been told repeatedly it is not Interference for simply running to a base and being hit by a throw. Every person who has responded has told you the same thing and you are still arguing it. If you are so convinced you are right then why even bother asking the question.

Irish, that is some funny stuff right there. I had the exact same thought when I read the original post.
This play has been a subject for debate in our area for a long time, and you just can’t get some umpires to understand the intent of the rules sometimes.

It was a serious question. This is not a new rule. It took effect in 2006

These are plays presented at the first National UIC Clinic after the rule change.

In the first, there is no problem with the runner until he stands up into the throw. The fact the ball hit the runner in itself is nothing. The act of interference was the retired runner standing up into the path of the throw:

SITUATION 5: R1 on 1B and B2 hits a ground ball to F5 who throws to F4 covering 2B. R1 on their way to B falls down and then stands up as F4 is throwing to 1B for a double play. The ball hits R1 in the back before B2 reaches 1B

RULING: Interference is called on R1 and B2 is called out at 1B. Rule 8 Section 7J and P

In the second play, in the second the runner proceeded toward the base as expected even after being put out. BTW, the point that the runner was sliding is irrelevant to the rule

SITUATION 6: With no outs, R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B and R3 on 1B, B4 hits a hard ground ball to F6 who flips he ball to F4 on 2B to force out R3. In an attempt to turn a double play, F4’s throw to 1B hits R3 who is sliding into 2B.

RULING: This is not interference. B2 has a clean slide into 2B. Just because F4 makes an errant throw, the offensive team should not be punished. The ball remains live and the play continues. Rule 8 Section 7J3