USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball

[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.