USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball

[EricH]

I had a similar play to the following come up several times during the men's fp tournament this weekend (luckily no one got hit by the throws):

R1 on 1B, 1 out, B2 hits a slow grounder to F4, who makes a quick sidearm throw to F6 to retire R1 at 2B. R1, realizing he will be out, slightly changes his course to the right field side of the base path and gets hit by the throw.

I have interference here. Anyone disagree?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EricH

I had a similar play to the following come up several times during the men's fp tournament this weekend (luckily no one got hit by the throws):

R1 on 1B, 1 out, B2 hits a slow grounder to F4, who makes a quick sidearm throw to F6 to retire R1 at 2B. R1, realizing he will be out, slightly changes his course to the right field side of the base path and gets hit by the throw.

I have interference here. Anyone disagree?

No one should because by changing his path, he committed an act of interference. If he just stopped or stayed the course, the defender doesn't have to guess where the retired runner is going to go when attempting to make a play at first.

That is their reason for removing "intent" from the rule. In your scenario, many umpires would state that they wouldn't rule INT simply because they could not tell if the runner intentionally move into the defender's throw or if it was just an accident on the retired runner's part.

Again, it isn't getting hit be the throw that demands the INT ruling, it was the retired runner moving from where he was supposed to be prior to being hit by the throw.

[EricH]

And that's how we can post an honest question and use logic, rules, and rules clarifications, to come to an answer.