USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by EricH

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.

Think about it, Eric. If it was truly interference when a runner gets hit with a thrown ball, why have a runner's lane to begin with? If the batter-runner was running inside the lane and got hit with the throw, wouldn't she be out for interference then? Or are you now suggesting that the runner's lane is the only safe area in the 240 feet of base path that the runner can get hit by a throw, and she would not be guilty of anything? She's got 30 feet out of the 240 feet where she doesn't have to worry about getting hit with a throw, but the other 210, watch out! She gets hit then, she's interfering? Really??

Yes, I stand by my characterization that it's preposterous to require the runner to have eyes in the back of her head to know that a throw is coming at her from behind, and she has to somehow avoid it.

I honestly don't know why the rulesmakers removed the word "intentionally" from the what constitutes runner's interference with a thrown ball. The NCAA rule book still has the word "intentionally" in the rule. So does the NFHS rule book. Why ASA (and now USA) took that out is beyond me. But there's no way they did so to penalize a runner anytime she's contacted with a thrown ball.

It may be that they just wanted to penalize runners for doing something dumb, but not wantonly intentional, that hinders play. For example, runners at first and third, one out. Fly ball to right field, and the runner from first, thinking there were two outs, takes off for second without tagging up. She rounds second going for third when she hears her base coach telling her to go back to first base. So she takes of directly from the shortstop area back to first without thinking about retouching second base on the way. The right fielder catches the fly ball as the runner from third base tags up and tries to score. The throw comes in, and it hits the runner going back to first base somewhere between the pitcher's circle and the bag.

I can see where that runner should be called out for interference. Did she do something with intent to interfere? No. But did she run the bases in a legitimate fashion per the rules? Not really; she failed to tag up on the fly ball, and then she failed to return to first base properly by not retouching second on the way back. She basically put herself into no-man's land, and subsequently got hit with the throw. She had no business being where she was, so although she didn't do anything intentional, she did interfere with the throw home.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

If you are so convinced you are right then why even bother asking the question.

I never claimed that the rule meant definitively that any runner hit by any thrown ball committed interference. I was asking for rules clarifications one way or another.

I'm not convinced anyone is right because no one had said "here's what rule X says" or "such and such rule clarification says." I'm simply looking for umpires who actually have some knowledge to provide it, instead of "hey, obviously this can't be what is meant by the rule."

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It may be that they just wanted to penalize runners for doing something dumb, but not wantonly intentional, that hinders play. For example, runners at first and third, one out. Fly ball to right field, and the runner from first, thinking there were two outs, takes off for second without tagging up. She rounds second going for third when she hears her base coach telling her to go back to first base. So she takes of directly from the shortstop area back to first without thinking about retouching second base on the way. The right fielder catches the fly ball as the runner from third base tags up and tries to score. The throw comes in, and it hits the runner going back to first base somewhere between the pitcher's circle and the bag.

I can see where that runner should be called out for interference. Did she do something with intent to interfere? No. But did she run the bases in a legitimate fashion per the rules? Not really; she failed to tag up on the fly ball, and then she failed to return to first base properly by not retouching second on the way back. She basically put herself into no-man's land, and subsequently got hit with the throw. She had no business being where she was, so although she didn't do anything intentional, she did interfere with the throw home.

That's a good example.

Also this from the March 2007 rules clarifications:

SITUATION 3: With no outs and R1 at 1B, B2 hits a ground ball to F6 who fields the ball and throws to F4 at 2B to start a double play. F4 steps on 2B and throws the ball to F3 in an attempt to retire B2. R1, knowing they are out, turns to go back to the dugout where the ball strikes them in the back and ricochets into foul ground. RULING: R1 is guilty of interference after being declared out. In this case, because B2 is the only runner and therefore closest to home plate, B2 is also be declared out. (Rule 8, Section 7 J [3])

This one is interesting because I think a lot of umpires would let play continue with no call of interference.

[EricH]

I had a similar play to the following come up several times during the men's fp tournament this weekend (luckily no one got hit by the throws):

R1 on 1B, 1 out, B2 hits a slow grounder to F4, who makes a quick sidearm throw to F6 to retire R1 at 2B. R1, realizing he will be out, slightly changes his course to the right field side of the base path and gets hit by the throw.

I have interference here. Anyone disagree?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EricH

I had a similar play to the following come up several times during the men's fp tournament this weekend (luckily no one got hit by the throws):

R1 on 1B, 1 out, B2 hits a slow grounder to F4, who makes a quick sidearm throw to F6 to retire R1 at 2B. R1, realizing he will be out, slightly changes his course to the right field side of the base path and gets hit by the throw.

I have interference here. Anyone disagree?

No one should because by changing his path, he committed an act of interference. If he just stopped or stayed the course, the defender doesn't have to guess where the retired runner is going to go when attempting to make a play at first.

That is their reason for removing "intent" from the rule. In your scenario, many umpires would state that they wouldn't rule INT simply because they could not tell if the runner intentionally move into the defender's throw or if it was just an accident on the retired runner's part.

Again, it isn't getting hit be the throw that demands the INT ruling, it was the retired runner moving from where he was supposed to be prior to being hit by the throw.

[EricH]

And that's how we can post an honest question and use logic, rules, and rules clarifications, to come to an answer.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Think about it, Eric. If it was truly interference when a runner gets hit with a thrown ball, why have a runner's lane to begin with? If the batter-runner was running inside the lane and got hit with the throw, wouldn't she be out for interference then? Or are you now suggesting that the runner's lane is the only safe area in the 240 feet of base path that the runner can get hit by a throw, and she would not be guilty of anything? She's got 30 feet out of the 240 feet where she doesn't have to worry about getting hit with a throw, but the other 210, watch out! She gets hit then, she's interfering? Really??

Yes, I stand by my characterization that it's preposterous to require the runner to have eyes in the back of her head to know that a throw is coming at her from behind, and she has to somehow avoid it.

I honestly don't know why the rulesmakers removed the word "intentionally" from the what constitutes runner's interference with a thrown ball. The NCAA rule book still has the word "intentionally" in the rule. So does the NFHS rule book. Why ASA (and now USA) took that out is beyond me. But there's no way they did so to penalize a runner anytime she's contacted with a thrown ball.

It may be that they just wanted to penalize runners for doing something dumb, but not wantonly intentional, that hinders play. For example, runners at first and third, one out. Fly ball to right field, and the runner from first, thinking there were two outs, takes off for second without tagging up. She rounds second going for third when she hears her base coach telling her to go back to first base. So she takes of directly from the shortstop area back to first without thinking about retouching second base on the way. The right fielder catches the fly ball as the runner from third base tags up and tries to score. The throw comes in, and it hits the runner going back to first base somewhere between the pitcher's circle and the bag.

I can see where that runner should be called out for interference. Did she do something with intent to interfere? No. But did she run the bases in a legitimate fashion per the rules? Not really; she failed to tag up on the fly ball, and then she failed to return to first base properly by not retouching second on the way back. She basically put herself into no-man's land, and subsequently got hit with the throw. She had no business being where she was, so although she didn't do anything intentional, she did interfere with the throw home.

I'm going to play devil's advocate on the highlighted section.

You'd call interference on the runner because of her position on the field? Runners can establish their own basepath.

You'd NOT call interference if the runner had "properly retouched" second base on her way back to first base?

The defense has options here of appealing (live) the runner getting back to first base in time or (dead) appealing the runner missing second base on her return to first base.

I don't think we can call a runner out for INT because we think she "wasn't in the right place".

A runner takes a wide turn at first base on a ball that F1 overthrows. F4 retrieves the ball that bounced off the fence and the throw hits the runner on her way to second base. INT? Heck no.

A runner retreating to first base after a line drive is caught by F6 who then throws to F3 trying for a double play. Ball hits runner in the backside. INT? Heck no.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I don't think we can call a runner out for INT because we think she "wasn't in the right place".

And your response to my "SITUATION 3" above? The only reason "after being declared out" in the situation matters is to determine which runner(s) is(/are) called out (it has no bearing on whether the runner has the right to be there or not). The runner in that situation had far better reason to be where she was than a runner in the middle of the diamond.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by EricH

And your response to my "SITUATION 3" above? The only reason "after being declared out" in the situation matters is to determine which runner(s) is(/are) called out (it has no bearing on whether the runner has the right to be there or not). The runner in that situation had far better reason to be where she was than a runner in the middle of the diamond.

First of all, situation 3 is dealing with a retired runner (i.e. not a runner).

Secondly, the retired runner committed an act of interference.

Thirdly, by inference, when the runner committed said act of interference, it did have a bearing on whether the runner had the right to be where she ended up. (Hint: She didn't.)

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I'm going to play devil's advocate on the highlighted section.

You'd call interference on the runner because of her position on the field? Runners can establish their own basepath.

You'd NOT call interference if the runner had "properly retouched" second base on her way back to first base?

The defense has options here of appealing (live) the runner getting back to first base in time or (dead) appealing the runner missing second base on her return to first base.

I don't think we can call a runner out for INT because we think she "wasn't in the right place".

A runner takes a wide turn at first base on a ball that F1 overthrows. F4 retrieves the ball that bounced off the fence and the throw hits the runner on her way to second base. INT? Heck no.

A runner retreating to first base after a line drive is caught by F6 who then throws to F3 trying for a double play. Ball hits runner in the backside. INT? Heck no.

I was just trying to come up with a scenario to answer Eric’s question how a runner can do something unintentionally that can be considered interference with a thrown ball. If you can come up with something better, be my guest. There has to be something out there that can reasonably justify why ASA unilaterally decided to get rid of the word “intentionally” from the rule. No other sanction that I’m aware of did that.

It’s easier to come up with situations where a retired runner does something unintentional that subsequently interferes. A runner scores, and on her way back to the dugout, she crosses in front of home plate and gets hit by a throw home. Or a runner retired on the front end of a DP slides into the bag with her hands raised and the throw to first hits one of her hands. Those are no-brainers to me.

But how does an active runner interfere with a thrown ball with no intent? IMO, she has to do something so out of the realm of reason when it comes to running the bases, that she deserves to be called on it. The scenario I posed was something I thought met that thought process. Yes, runners can make their own base paths, but there has to be a balance between legitimate base running and just being anywhere on the field that doesn't make much sense.

Something like that must've happened that compelled OKC to change the rule. I wasn't umpiring softball back in 2006 to know why they did it. It makes no sense to me why they removed intent from the rule.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It makes no sense to me why they removed intent from the rule.

I can tell you why. It's much easier to judge actions than intent. If we call a runner out for intentionally interfering, he can argue it wasn't intentional. If we don't call a runner out, the defense can argue that it was intentional. We are in effect dealing with the runner's thought process rather than his action. I'm sure the ASA decided it was much easier to rule on what the runner did instead of why he did it.

Now, no one can argue "it was/was not intentional."

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

First of all, situation 3 is dealing with a retired runner (i.e. not a runner).

That does not matter. The rule does not differentiate between a runner or a retired runner except to determine which runner ends up being called out. The rule states "the runner is out...when the runner interferes...." There is not a separate rule for retired runners. Only the EFFECT is different because you can't call a retired runner out.

Secondly, the retired runner committed an act of interference.

The retired runner ran back to the dugout. This is splitting hairs that you earlier didn't like me doing.

Thirdly, by inference, when the runner committed said act of interference, it did have a bearing on whether the runner had the right to be where she ended up. (Hint: She didn't.)

The runner did have a right to be where she was; she just didn't have a right to do what she did. It was her "act," not her location, that got her in trouble. If she had stood still where she was, I guarantee the result of the play would have been no interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I don't think we can call a runner out for INT because we think she "wasn't in the right place".

Well, yes you can. That is why if a runner deviates from an established or obvious path and interferes with the throw, it is INT

A runner takes a wide turn at first base on a ball that F1 overthrows. F4 retrieves the ball that bounced off the fence and the throw hits the runner on her way to second base. INT? Heck no.

Correct, unless the runner makes a move other than advancing toward the base

A runner retreating to first base after a line drive is caught by F6 who then throws to F3 trying for a double play. Ball hits runner in the backside. INT? Heck no.

Again, correct unless the runner makes a move other than advancing toward the base

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, yes you can. That is why if a runner deviates from an established or obvious path and interferes with the throw, it is INT

I can agree with that. If/when there is a deviation, you might actually be able to ascertain "intent".

With no outs, B1 swings and misses at an uncaught third strike. F2 makes no attempt to tag the batter who begins walking to her dugout on the third base side of the field. F2 does not throw to F3 for an out at first base, and returns the ball to F1 who is in the circle.

As B1 passes the third base coach, he tells B1 to run to first, which she does - straight across the diamond making a straight line to first base.

F1 seeing the runner going to first base attempts to tag her, misses, and throws to F3. The runner is still heading straight to first base and the throw hits her on the helmet and bounds away.

Was the runner "not where she was supposed to be"? Are we ruling her out for being outside the running lane?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Are we ruling her out for being outside the running lane?

Actually, yes we are if she's in the last half of the way to first. By rule, she is required to be in the runner's lane.