USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball

[EricH]

Getting ready to umpire my eleventh national next week, and I still have questions here and there.

Situation:

One out, runner on first (R1), batter (B1) hits a ground ball to F3, who throws to F6 at second base to turn a double play. The thrown ball hits R1 in the shoulder. In the umpire's judgment, F3 did not intentionally throw at R1, and R1 did not intentionally interfere with the throw. Both R1 and BR arrive at 2nd and 1st base safely before F4 retrieves the ball.

What is the result of the play?

The rulebook states only that a runner shall be declared out for interfering "with a thrown ball" - no mention of intentionality (thus the reason for my question).

[RKBUmp]

Running the bases is not an act of interference. Other than a batter runner between home and first, there is no penalty for a runner hit by a thrown ball unless they commit some act of interference.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Running the bases is not an act of interference. Other than a batter runner between home and first, there is no penalty for a runner hit by a thrown ball unless they commit some act of interference.

You could say the same about a fielder standing in the path of a base runner. He has not committed an ACT of obstruction, but he will be called for it anyway. So give me a better reason. Both definitions (of obstruction and interference) reference an "act." So we cannot hold the fielder to a higher standard than the runner.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by EricH

You could say the same about a fielder standing in the path of a base runner. He has not committed an ACT of obstruction, but he will be called for it anyway. So give me a better reason. Both definitions (of obstruction and interference) reference an "act." So we cannot hold the fielder to a higher standard than the runner.

No, a fielder just standing in a runners path is not automatically obstruction. There are 2 factors that must be met to have obstruction, 1, a fielder not in possession of the ball and not in the act of Fielding a batted ball in the runners way, and 2, some hindrance of the runner. Until both are met you do not have obstruction.

So no, a fielder is not guilty of obstruction for just being in a runner path until such time as the runner is actually impeded in some way.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

So no, a fielder is not guilty of obstruction for just being in a runner path until such time as the runner is actually impeded in some way.

Semantics

[EricH]

I'm actually looking for rules-based or point-of-emphasis-based answers here, not just quips or three-word responses. I found ONE rule clarification play on the USA Softball website that indicated a batter-runner COULD be ruled out for interfering with a throw home, even if the interference was not intentional, but it did not provide real guidance. It just indicated that he COULD be ruled out IF the umpire judged it to be interference (NOT intentional). How can you judge an UNINTENTIONAL act where a runner gets hit with a thrown ball as interference in one case but not another? THAT is what I am getting at here.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by EricH

Semantics

No, it is not semantics it is the rule. What you stated about a fielder being in the path of the runner being obstruction is not correct. Until such time as the runner is actually impeded it is nothing.

[josephrt1]

comment withdrawn: I misquoted the R/S.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

check RS 33. runner interference includes: 3. Intentionally interfering with a thrown ball.

It does not sound like your situation was intentional.

The RULE states that the runner is called out for interfering with a thrown ball, NOT intentionally interfering.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by EricH

The RULE states that the runner is called out for interfering with a thrown ball, NOT intentionally interfering.

No argument but there is clarification in the rule supplement that includes the word intentionally.

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Originally Posted by EricH

The RULE states that the runner is called out for interfering with a thrown ball, NOT intentionally interfering.

But is NOT interfering simply by running the bases normally - they eliminated that in baseball 160 years ago. Unless that runner did something really to misdirect that ball - play ball! That was the reasoning behind the non call on Reggie Jackson in the 78 Series. (Just as a bit of trivia, what call did that crew REALLY blow on that play? No hints)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

they eliminated that in baseball 160 years ago

And in baseball, the interference must be INTENTIONAL. This is not a question about baseball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EricH

The RULE states that the runner is called out for interfering with a thrown ball, NOT intentionally interfering.

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.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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.

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.

"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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EricH

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.

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