USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball

[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.

[RKBUmp]

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.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

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?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

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.