The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 18, 2004, 10:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5
Question

I am an umpire and I have aquestion about a call that was made in a game I was playing in.

We had runners on 1st and 2nd. Batter hits the ball to the 3rd baseman. 3rd baseman boots the ball backward and toward shortstop. Our runner is in the basepath between 2nd and 3rd, and as the 3rd baseman turns to go get the ball they collide. The homeplate umpire calls our runner out for interference and says he should have went around the 3rd baseman.

I felt like this was the wrong call to make as there was no way for our runner to get out of the way.

Was this the right call or was it wrong?

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 18, 2004, 10:58pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Question Hmmm.

Quote:
Originally posted by hdsanders
I am an umpire and I have aquestion about a call that was made in a game I was playing in.

We had runners on 1st and 2nd. Batter hits the ball to the 3rd baseman. 3rd baseman boots the ball backward and toward shortstop. Our runner is in the basepath between 2nd and 3rd, and as the 3rd baseman turns to go get the ball they collide. The homeplate umpire calls our runner out for interference and says he should have went around the 3rd baseman.

I felt like this was the wrong call to make as there was no way for our runner to get out of the way.

Was this the right call or was it wrong?

Thanks
hdsanders,
Under which rule do you think the runner was not out?
mick
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 18, 2004, 11:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5
Too me it was incidental contact. Our runner had no way of going around the 3rd baseman. 3rd baseman was fielding the ball in front of the basepath and then when he booted it he turned into the basepath and our runner had no where to go. That was my question, I could not find a ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 18, 2004, 11:39pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally posted by hdsanders
Too me it was incidental contact. Our runner had no way of going around the 3rd baseman. 3rd baseman was fielding the ball in front of the basepath and then when he booted it he turned into the basepath and our runner had no where to go. That was my question, I could not find a ruling.
hdsanders,
Seems to me that the fielder was no longer fielding a batted or thrown ball, that there was no intentional interference, that the runner could not avoid the contact.

The way you described the play, I agree, the contact was incidental and the defense should not be rewarded or punished for the subsequent contact. Thus, Jump ball! Train wreck!

However, I wasn't there, but "in the judgement of the umpire...."


mick
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 18, 2004, 11:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 541
Send a message via AIM to TexBlue
Yeah, I agree with Mick. Picturing the play as you described it, I'm just calling it a train wreck and playing ball. Now, if all this started several steps apart and the 3rd baseman was heading towards the ball and the runner ran into him/her, it's gonna be interference.
__________________
Rick
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 19, 2004, 12:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2
Send a message via ICQ to PBrown2300 Send a message via AIM to PBrown2300
Thumbs up

If ASA rules were being used it is covered in Rule 8-7j-5:

The runner is out when the runner interferes intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected ball.

Question # 75 on the ASA test. Must be intentional!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 19, 2004, 07:58am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally posted by PBrown2300
If ASA rules were being used it is covered in Rule 8-7j-5:

The runner is out when the runner interferes intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected ball.

Question # 75 on the ASA test. Must be intentional!!!!!
PBrown2300,
Welcome to the forum.

No, that rule doesn't work for the situation described by hdsanders. He used the word *incidental*.
I think if the runner intentionally ran into F5 who was going after his mistake, even I could have made a call.
mick
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 19, 2004, 08:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: woodville, tx
Posts: 3,156
Sure glad to see that our moderator is getting involved
with posting.

However, I am going out on a limb here. I disagree with a "train
wreck" call. That is usually reserved for receiving a thrown
ball. On this play I visualize F5 booting turning toward the
booted ball and being hit by runner. Without having been there,
at this point, I got INTF.

JMHO,

__________________
glen _______________________________
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things
that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover."
--Mark Twain.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 19, 2004, 08:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: woodville, tx
Posts: 3,156
Welcome

,

Welcome to the board hsanders and PBrown2300.
__________________
glen _______________________________
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things
that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover."
--Mark Twain.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 19, 2004, 09:12am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally posted by whiskers_ump
Sure glad to see that our moderator is getting involved
with posting.

However, I am going out on a limb here. I disagree with a "train
wreck" call. That is usually reserved for receiving a thrown
ball. On this play I visualize F5 booting turning toward the
booted ball and being hit by runner. Without having been there,
at this point, I got INTF.

JMHO,

Without disagreement, we stumble into mediocrity.

So, Glen, what is your term for a fielder (on track to the ball) and a runner (on track to a bag), each going in opposite directions and ending in a *legal* collision?

Ball buster.
Legal entanglement.
Baseless intrusion.
Oopsy.
mick



I wish I woulda picked Texas over Princeton.


Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 19, 2004, 09:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Allow me to add a slightly different viewpoint to this situation. OBR (Yeah - I know, OBR ain't softball ) has an interp that basically says if the deflected ball is within reach of the fielder, you are still gonna protect him. More than a reach and he's a likely candidate for obstruction.

If the fielder pivots into the basepath reaching for the ball - it could still be INT. Otherwise - possibly OBS. HTBT.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 19, 2004, 09:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 476
Send a message via ICQ to SamNVa Send a message via AIM to SamNVa Send a message via Yahoo to SamNVa
I generally go with the "step and a reach" criteria for determining interference on a muffed ball. the bottom line is whether the fielder still had an opportunity to make an out on some runner. If ItUJ, she did then you have interference, if she doesn't have a play, then you most likely have obstruction.

SamC
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 19, 2004, 09:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Speaking ASA.

Is it a batted ball?

Yes. So is it a deflected batted ball?

Yes. So did the fielder have a opportunity to make an out? (Notice - not a play, an OUT! Notice - "opportunity" not "possibility")

Yes. (I'm assuming "Yes" since there was a runner heading right for him - easy tag.) So, was the contact intentional?

Assuming there was no thrown elbow or deliberate path deviation, I'm going to judge this in part by how far apart the players were when F6 went after the deflected ball.

Remember: the runner is assumed to have his head up and able to see all of the action in front of him. The fielder is assumed to be focusing on the ball. Benefit of the doubt goes to the fielder every time when fielding a batted ball.

If the runner was several strides away and just barrelled into the fielder - or as in your description, cut it too close - that may qualify for "intentional" - but is something you have to see to judge - HTBT.

If the runner was too close to react and avoid the contact, the we have incint... incend... heck, a train wreck.

There is no obstruction here. Why? The fielder was in the act of fielding a batted ball.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 19, 2004, 09:43am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally posted by kono
Allow me to add a slightly different viewpoint to this situation. OBR (Yeah - I know, OBR ain't softball ) has an interp that basically says if the deflected ball is within reach of the fielder, you are still gonna protect him. More than a reach and he's a likely candidate for obstruction.

If the fielder pivots into the basepath reaching for the ball - it could still be INT. Otherwise - possibly OBS. HTBT.
Good call, kono.
I think there had to be some distance "beyond reach" in the sitch. Runner from second, 3rd base kicks the ball toward short.

Based upon the statement "...as the 3rd baseman turns to go get the ball they collide.", I wonder:
  • How big was the lead that the runner had, or how fast was that guy?
  • Where was F5 playing, way off the line?
  • Was F5 very slow?

    mick
  • Reply With Quote
      #15 (permalink)  
    Old Fri Mar 19, 2004, 09:49am
    Official Forum Member
     
    Join Date: Aug 2000
    Posts: 476
    Send a message via ICQ to SamNVa Send a message via AIM to SamNVa Send a message via Yahoo to SamNVa
    Quote:
    Originally posted by Dakota
    There is no obstruction here. Why? The fielder was in the act of fielding a batted ball.
    Tom,

    I have to disagree with your last statement. I think that if the ball gets far enough away from the fielder, they are no longer fielding a batted ball, instead they are chasing after a ball, and can be guilty of obstruction if they get tangled up with a runner.

    SamC
    Reply With Quote
    Reply

    Bookmarks

    Thread Tools
    Display Modes Rate This Thread
    Rate This Thread:

    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



    All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43pm.



    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1