USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball
 

Getting ready to umpire my eleventh national next week, and I still have questions here and there.

Situation:

One out, runner on first (R1), batter (B1) hits a ground ball to F3, who throws to F6 at second base to turn a double play. The thrown ball hits R1 in the shoulder. In the umpire's judgment, F3 did not intentionally throw at R1, and R1 did not intentionally interfere with the throw. Both R1 and BR arrive at 2nd and 1st base safely before F4 retrieves the ball.

What is the result of the play?

The rulebook states only that a runner shall be declared out for interfering "with a thrown ball" - no mention of intentionality (thus the reason for my question).

Running the bases is not an act of interference. Other than a batter runner between home and first, there is no penalty for a runner hit by a thrown ball unless they commit some act of interference.

comment withdrawn: I misquoted the R/S.

You could say the same about a fielder standing in the path of a base runner. He has not committed an ACT of obstruction, but he will be called for it anyway. So give me a better reason. Both definitions (of obstruction and interference) reference an "act." So we cannot hold the fielder to a higher standard than the runner.

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

No argument but there is clarification in the rule supplement that includes the word intentionally.

But is NOT interfering simply by running the bases normally - they eliminated that in baseball 160 years ago. Unless that runner did something really to misdirect that ball - play ball! That was the reasoning behind the non call on Reggie Jackson in the 78 Series. (Just as a bit of trivia, what call did that crew REALLY blow on that play? No hints)

No, a fielder just standing in a runners path is not automatically obstruction. There are 2 factors that must be met to have obstruction, 1, a fielder not in possession of the ball and not in the act of Fielding a batted ball in the runners way, and 2, some hindrance of the runner. Until both are met you do not have obstruction.

So no, a fielder is not guilty of obstruction for just being in a runner path until such time as the runner is actually impeded in some way.

Runners on 2nd and 1st, one out.

Semantics

I'm actually looking for rules-based or point-of-emphasis-based answers here, not just quips or three-word responses. I found ONE rule clarification play on the USA Softball website that indicated a batter-runner COULD be ruled out for interfering with a throw home, even if the interference was not intentional, but it did not provide real guidance. It just indicated that he COULD be ruled out IF the umpire judged it to be interference (NOT intentional). How can you judge an UNINTENTIONAL act where a runner gets hit with a thrown ball as interference in one case but not another? THAT is what I am getting at here.

And in baseball, the interference must be INTENTIONAL. This is not a question about baseball.

No, it is not semantics it is the rule. What you stated about a fielder being in the path of the runner being obstruction is not correct. Until such time as the runner is actually impeded it is nothing.

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.

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.

No. That results in ejections.

Again, give me an act that can be ruled interference WITHOUT being intentional.

Which case play or clarification are you talking about?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 never claimed that the rule meant definitively that any runner hit by any thrown ball committed interference. I was asking for rules clarifications one way or another.

I'm not convinced anyone is right because no one had said "here's what rule X says" or "such and such rule clarification says." I'm simply looking for umpires who actually have some knowledge to provide it, instead of "hey, obviously this can't be what is meant by the rule."

That's a good example.

Also this from the March 2007 rules clarifications:

This one is interesting because I think a lot of umpires would let play continue with no call of interference.

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.

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

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.

And your response to my "SITUATION 3" above? The only reason "after being declared out" in the situation matters is to determine which runner(s) is(/are) called out (it has no bearing on whether the runner has the right to be there or not). The runner in that situation had far better reason to be where she was than a runner in the middle of the diamond.

First of all, situation 3 is dealing with a retired runner (i.e. not a runner).

Secondly, the retired runner committed an act of interference.

Thirdly, by inference, when the runner committed said act of interference, it did have a bearing on whether the runner had the right to be where she ended up. (Hint: She didn't.)

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.

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."

That does not matter. The rule does not differentiate between a runner or a retired runner except to determine which runner ends up being called out. The rule states "the runner is out...when the runner interferes...." There is not a separate rule for retired runners. Only the EFFECT is different because you can't call a retired runner out.

The retired runner ran back to the dugout. This is splitting hairs that you earlier didn't like me doing.

The runner did have a right to be where she was; she just didn't have a right to do what she did. It was her "act," not her location, that got her in trouble. If she had stood still where she was, I guarantee the result of the play would have been no interference.

Well, yes you can. That is why if a runner deviates from an established or obvious path and interferes with the throw, it is INTCorrect, unless the runner makes a move other than advancing toward the base

Again, correct unless the runner makes a move other than advancing toward the base

I can agree with that. If/when there is a deviation, you might actually be able to ascertain "intent".

With no outs, B1 swings and misses at an uncaught third strike. F2 makes no attempt to tag the batter who begins walking to her dugout on the third base side of the field. F2 does not throw to F3 for an out at first base, and returns the ball to F1 who is in the circle.

As B1 passes the third base coach, he tells B1 to run to first, which she does - straight across the diamond making a straight line to first base.

F1 seeing the runner going to first base attempts to tag her, misses, and throws to F3. The runner is still heading straight to first base and the throw hits her on the helmet and bounds away.

Was the runner "not where she was supposed to be"? Are we ruling her out for being outside the running lane? :D

Actually, yes we are if she's in the last half of the way to first. By rule, she is required to be in the runner's lane.

Well, I don't have the rule book in front of me since I'm on travel right now. But I'm pretty sure there is a separate rule that deals with retired runners. It says something like, "When after being put out or after scoring, a player interferes with the defense's opportunity to make a play on another runner." It is a little more open-ended to interpretation on what that retired runner does, regardless of intent.

From what I've learned here, a running lane violation is when a Batter-Runner interferes with a ball thrown from the area of home plate.

Nope. It's part of the same rule. Simply says if the runner is already out, the runner nearest home at the time of the interference is called out.

Running lane violation is for anytime the runner is running outside the lane and interferes with a play at first.

Nah, F6 trying to turn a double play and hits BR out of the running lane ain't gettin a call from me...

Well, it should if F3 is stretching for the ball and gets handcuffed by BR inside the baseline. Coach will fly out of the dugout otherwise, and with good reason.

Just do a search for "interference running lane 3" and you'll see interference by a BR on a throw from 3B.

Not if the umpire judges it did not interfere with the fielder taking the throw

Not in the rule book. :rolleyes:

Now that I have the rule book in front of me:

It's not part of the same rule. Rule 8, Section 7J covers interference by an active runner, 7P a retired runner.

It is part of the same rule, 8.7, the runner is out. That's what I meant. But you're right.