The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 12, 2021, 07:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 7
"Crash" @1B

NFHS game. 0 out, R1 on 2B. B2 hits ground ball to F4 who throws to F3 at 1B and B2 is out. B2 is still running full speed and crashes into F3, which causes both F3 and B2 to go from being upright to being completely prone on the ground past 1B, and F3 still has possession of the ball. R1 has already passed 3B and continues to HP and scores, and F3 is unable to make a play on R1 because she has been knocked to the ground.

What do you rule?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 13, 2021, 09:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Fremont, NH
Posts: 1,372
NFHS does not have a definition for "crash" (USA does have a rule supplement on this).

NFHS does have a definition for Interference and Malicious Contact.

I can't fault a BR for running hard all the way to (and through) 1B.

I think this situation needs to determine if the BR veered into F3 or did F3 move into the path of the BR.

Was there MC?

Earning the big $$$.
__________________
Ted
USA & NFHS Softball

Last edited by Tru_in_Blu; Tue Apr 13, 2021 at 10:01am.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 13, 2021, 01:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Rockville,MD
Posts: 1,154
Was there malicious contact, or did the batter-runner attempt (and fail) to avoid contacting the fielder? This is the big question. If it was not malicious contact, but a trainwreck, then the runner scores, and next batter comes to bat with one out. If it was, the runner is held at third (the last legally acquired base prior to the malicious contact), the batter-runner is out and ejected, and the next batter comes to bat with one out.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 13, 2021, 01:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 268
It doesn't have to be malicious contact. Good old interference will cause the runner to go back to third.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 13, 2021, 07:01pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,074
Interference by a Retired Runner.

This is Interference by a Retired Runner; see 2020-21 NFHS Softball Casebook Play 8.6.16 Situation A:

"R1 is on third base. B2 hits a slow roller to the shortstop who attempts to throw R1 out at the plate. F2 receives the throw behind the plate. Realizing she cannot make a play on R1, she turns to throw B2 out who is advancing to second and (a) is run into by R1 after R1 has crossed the plate causing her to drop the ball (the contact is not malicious); (b) is maliciously run into by R1 after R1 has crossed the plate. RULING: The run would score in (a) and (b), because R1 interfered after touching the plate. If, in the umpire's judgment,
the interference prevented F2 from making a play on B2, the umpire shall call B2 out. In (b), R1 is ejected for malicious contact. (R3-S6-A18)"

Currently, there is a Play being discussed in the Facebook group Softball Umpires regarding Inteference by a Retired Runner (R1) going from 1B to 2B and Mark, Jr. and I have already taken the position though R1 did not "intentionally interfere" it is Interference by a Retired Runner using 2020-21 NFHS Softball Casebool Play 8.6.16 Situation B.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 28, 2021, 03:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,387
^ I agree with Mark ^
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2016 NCAA Rule Change: OBS - "About to Receive" vs. "In the act of Catching" teebob21 Softball 15 Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:16pm
NHSF "intentional" vs NCAA "flagarent" terminology Duffman Basketball 17 Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:15pm
Is "the patient whistle" and "possession consequence" ruining the game? fiasco Basketball 46 Fri Dec 02, 2011 08:43am
ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight pizanno Basketball 27 Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:08am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1