USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball

[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 RKBUmp

simply running the bases is NOT interference, it requires some act to be committed other than running straight to the base.

The rule does not say: "Interference is an act other than running straight to the base...."

It says: "Interference is an act...."

[RKBUmp]

Go ahead and call it interference if you want. You have been told repeatedly it is not Interference for simply running to a base and being hit by a throw. Every person who has responded has told you the same thing and you are still arguing it. If you are so convinced you are right then why even bother asking the question.

[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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

If no intent is required then all a fielder has to do is intentionally hit a runner with the ball to get an out.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

If no intent is required then all a fielder has to do is intentionally hit a runner with the ball to get an out.

You said "intentionally." If a defensive player intentionally throws at a runner, that player can be ejected.

Why does no one actually address the rules involved? Is it too difficult?

[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 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.

[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.