USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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.

I was just trying to come up with a scenario to answer Eric’s question how a runner can do something unintentionally that can be considered interference with a thrown ball. If you can come up with something better, be my guest. There has to be something out there that can reasonably justify why ASA unilaterally decided to get rid of the word “intentionally” from the rule. No other sanction that I’m aware of did that.

It’s easier to come up with situations where a retired runner does something unintentional that subsequently interferes. A runner scores, and on her way back to the dugout, she crosses in front of home plate and gets hit by a throw home. Or a runner retired on the front end of a DP slides into the bag with her hands raised and the throw to first hits one of her hands. Those are no-brainers to me.

But how does an active runner interfere with a thrown ball with no intent? IMO, she has to do something so out of the realm of reason when it comes to running the bases, that she deserves to be called on it. The scenario I posed was something I thought met that thought process. Yes, runners can make their own base paths, but there has to be a balance between legitimate base running and just being anywhere on the field that doesn't make much sense.

Something like that must've happened that compelled OKC to change the rule. I wasn't umpiring softball back in 2006 to know why they did it. It makes no sense to me why they removed intent from the rule.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It makes no sense to me why they removed intent from the rule.

I can tell you why. It's much easier to judge actions than intent. If we call a runner out for intentionally interfering, he can argue it wasn't intentional. If we don't call a runner out, the defense can argue that it was intentional. We are in effect dealing with the runner's thought process rather than his action. I'm sure the ASA decided it was much easier to rule on what the runner did instead of why he did it.

Now, no one can argue "it was/was not intentional."