USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball

[RKBUmp]

Which case play or clarification are you talking about?

[Manny A]

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.

My rule book under RS 33 doesn't mention the word "intentionally". You may be referencing an older rule book.

[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.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by Manny A

My rule book under RS 33 doesn't mention the word "intentionally". You may be referencing an older rule book.

You are correct, sorry. the R/S does not say intentional.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EricH

The RULE states that the runner is called out for interfering with a thrown ball, NOT intentionally interfering.

Here we go again.

You are working your 11th national and this is a question?

Try reading the definition of interference, the word "act" is part of the definition.

And, while you are at it, check the definition of obstruction and see if you can find the word or requirement of an "act" of obstruction.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You are working your 11th national and this is a question?

Try being helpful instead of condescending.

I was asking because the removal of the wording about intentionality makes it difficult. I have a hard time coming up with a situation where an offensive player might unintentionally interfere with a thrown ball; thus, my reason for asking the question. The only situation I can think of is a runner who has been put out trying to get out of the way but ends up in the way as a result of his action.

Try reading the definition of interference, the word "act" is part of the definition.

And, while you are at it, check the definition of obstruction and see if you can find the word or requirement of an "act" of obstruction.

"Obstruction is the act of a defensive team member..."

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I was umpiring a men's fp tourn this weekend.

[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?

[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.

[Umpire@1]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Here we go again.

You are working your 11th national and this is a question?

Try reading the definition of interference, the word "act" is part of the definition.

And, while you are at it, check the definition of obstruction and see if you can find the word or requirement of an "act" of obstruction.

Irish, that is some funny stuff right there. I had the exact same thought when I read the original post.
This play has been a subject for debate in our area for a long time, and you just can’t get some umpires to understand the intent of the rules sometimes.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EricH

Try being helpful instead of condescending.

I was asking because the removal of the wording about intentionality makes it difficult. I have a hard time coming up with a situation where an offensive player might unintentionally interfere with a thrown ball; thus, my reason for asking the question. The only situation I can think of is a runner who has been put out trying to get out of the way but ends up in the way as a result of his action.

It was a serious question. This is not a new rule. It took effect in 2006

These are plays presented at the first National UIC Clinic after the rule change.

In the first, there is no problem with the runner until he stands up into the throw. The fact the ball hit the runner in itself is nothing. The act of interference was the retired runner standing up into the path of the throw:

SITUATION 5: R1 on 1B and B2 hits a ground ball to F5 who throws to F4 covering 2B. R1 on their way to B falls down and then stands up as F4 is throwing to 1B for a double play. The ball hits R1 in the back before B2 reaches 1B

RULING: Interference is called on R1 and B2 is called out at 1B. Rule 8 Section 7J and P

In the second play, in the second the runner proceeded toward the base as expected even after being put out. BTW, the point that the runner was sliding is irrelevant to the rule

SITUATION 6: With no outs, R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B and R3 on 1B, B4 hits a hard ground ball to F6 who flips he ball to F4 on 2B to force out R3. In an attempt to turn a double play, F4’s throw to 1B hits R3 who is sliding into 2B.

RULING: This is not interference. B2 has a clean slide into 2B. Just because F4 makes an errant throw, the offensive team should not be punished. The ball remains live and the play continues. Rule 8 Section 7J3