You make the call: INT by BR on a potential IFF

[chapmaja]

The part I am having trouble with on this is the interference part. Can someone please post a reference to why this was called interference by the batter runner (retired batter). She certainly does continue to run to first base, but I don't see anything in her running to first base that interferes with F3's ability to catch the ball. I simply see F3 misplay the ball.

Looking back to the 2013 casebook, there is a comment about a runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered interference. In this case I the runner continued to run, but does appear to do anything to physical interfere with the ability to catch the ball. The same comment is in the 2016 casebook.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The part I am having trouble with on this is the interference part. Can someone please post a reference to why this was called interference by the batter runner (retired batter). She certainly does continue to run to first base, but I don't see anything in her running to first base that interferes with F3's ability to catch the ball. I simply see F3 misplay the ball.

Easy, who ever made the decision was wrong, as who ever decided the outcome of this play (I believe the guy in blue jeans and the shoulder stripped navy jacket) was wrong.

[Tru_in_Blu]

My thanx to Big Slick for a compelling argument on this subject.

I initially thought this play could result in 2 outs. I no longer think that based on Slick's excellent citations.

I will stick to my opinion that I think the BR interfered w/ F3. That's a judgment call that an umpire has to make in short order before chaos breaks out.

I've had similar plays where the BR runs very close to the fielder, sometimes in an intimidating manner to make the fielder wary of a collision. When I can actually see the fielder flinch as the runner goes past, I know they were hindered. Whether they catch the ball or not, they were still interfered with.

Some folks continue to debate when the batter is out. I will call an IF when I'm supposed to, but the matter isn't really settled until the ball's status has been determined. And that's what I'll say about that.

Thanx to all for a lively and informative session.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Easy, who ever made the decision was wrong, as who ever decided the outcome of this play (I believe the guy in blue jeans and the shoulder stripped navy jacket) was wrong.

Watching the video I think the first base ump did come in an was calling interference on the play. I think he was making the call live on the field but did not do so in a manner that would draw attention to himself as would be needed in a play such as this.

I think the additional person was the one who had to sort out what the penalties were in the given situation.

I do think, if the interference call was correct, the interference was done by a retired batter-runner and as such the applicable penalties were correctly applied.

My issue with the play is the calling of interference by the batter runner on this play, as I simply don't see that.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Watching the video I think the first base ump did come in an was calling interference on the play. I think he was making the call live on the field but did not do so in a manner that would draw attention to himself as would be needed in a play such as this.

I think the additional person was the one who had to sort out what the penalties were in the given situation.

I do think, if the interference call was correct, the interference was done by a retired batter-runner and as such the applicable penalties were correctly applied.

My issue with the play is the calling of interference by the batter runner on this play, as I simply don't see that.

If they called the interference on the BR interfering with F3 catching the fly ball, you can only get one out. The BR is NOT retired until the ball achieved fair status, which would be when it plugged into the ground in fair territory. If BR was out on the interference, then dead ball, 1 out.

If she was not out by interfering with F3 catching the fly ball, then she was retired when the ball became fair, but by then, she was passed F3 and she did not interfere with F3 after that. That's the only way you are getting two outs, and they didn't happen.

Read my earlier post on the two options, either interference on BR, dead ball, she is out (1 out); or no BR interference, but BR out on infield fly, and runner is safe at home. And I don't care if BR interfered or not (again, I don't think she did), but either way, getting two outs on the play is wrong.

[chapmaja]

It will be interesting to see if we get any official interpretations out of this from NFHS (or any other ruling bodies).

[DaveASA/FED]

Take a look at this. Seems there are a couple of plays that might shed a little light on this conversation.

https://www.teamusa.org/usa-softball...34F77D1AD&_z=z

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Take a look at this. Seems there are a couple of plays that might shed a little light on this conversation.

https://www.teamusa.org/usa-softball...34F77D1AD&_z=z

Thanks Dave.

" . . . a batter is not out until the ball has been determined to be fair."

My observations:
The second play (runner interference), why would we need the Infield fly rule, when 8 7 J F covers the runner interference on either a fair or foul ball (both Runner and BR are out). 8 7 J F precludes any necessity for ball status for USA Softball (other codes are different).

In the third play (batter-runner interference), this seems to be covered under 8 2 F 1. Again, ball status is not needed.

Using either rule in each scenario gives you have the same effect.