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.

[josephrt1]

comment withdrawn: I misquoted the R/S.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EricH

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?

Runners on 2nd and 1st, one out.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[RKBUmp]

You have been given the answer repeatedly. Unless the runner commits some act to interfere with the thrown ball such as slapping at it, purposely changing course to be hit by it etc, being hit by the throw is nothing. Running the bases is not an act of interference

You start calling that and you are going to start a beanball session by the defense to get easy outs. It has never been interpreted in any way that a runner hit by a thrown ball is interference unless they commit some act to interfere with the throw.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Unless the runner commits some act to interfere with the thrown ball such as slapping at it, purposely changing course to be hit by it etc, being hit by the throw is nothing.

No. Those are all INTENTIONAL. The rule book was changed, and as I stated above, the case I mentioned indicated that the runner can be ruled out even if the act is NOT intentional, but it did not provide an example.

You start calling that and you are going to start a beanball session by the defense to get easy outs.

No. That results in ejections.

It has never been interpreted in any way that a runner hit by a thrown ball is interference unless they commit some act to interfere with the throw.

Again, give me an act that can be ruled interference WITHOUT being intentional.