USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball

[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.

[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.

[RKBUmp]

Which case play or clarification are you talking about?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Which case play or clarification are you talking about?

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

PLAY: With R1 on 3B and one out, B3 hits a ground ball to F3. R1 tries to advance home as F3 throws home and hits B3 who is running outside the three-foot lane. Do we have interference on B3 for not running in the three-foot lane?

RULING: B3 is not out for being out of the three-foot lane but could be called out for interference, if in the umpire’s judgment B3 committed interference. The three-foot lane only applies to the Batter-Runner when running to first base and the throw is to first base.

Rule 8, Section 2E: When the batter-runner runs outside the three-foot lane and, in the umpire’s judgment, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base….. However there could be Interference by the Batter-Runner if in the judgment of the umpire, the Batter-Runner impeded, hindered or confused the defensive player attempting to execute a play.
(Rule 1 - Definitions), or Rule 8 Section 7J [3] When a runner interferes:
1. With a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or a foul fly ball, or
2. With a fielder attempting to throw the ball, or
3. With a thrown ball.

EFFECT: If this interference, in the umpire’s judgment is an attempt to prevent
a double play and occurs before the runner is put out, the immediate
trailing runner shall also be called out.
4. Intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make
an out with the deflected batted ball.

The three-foot lane is not a factor when the throw comes from the fielder at 1B back toward home plate. It should be judged the same as a throw from 1B to 2B, 2B to 3B or 3B to home plate. If the umpire judges interference per Rule 8, Section 7J [3] then you could have the Batter-Runner out on interference. However whether the Batter-Runner was in the three-foot lane or not has no bearing on this play.

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.