Here is a play for all to learn from:

Team A is at bat with one out and a runner on third. Batter A2 bunts the ball up the first base line. Runner A1 breaks on the bunt. 1st base B1 tags A2 and then is run into by A2. B1 is knocked to the ground and has no opportunity to throw out the runner.

Having been an umpire for 10 years and now a coach, I wanted to get information on what others think about the situation. I have it on tape and know that interference should have been called, runner on third out on the interference.

I'll take a shot at learning from this..
 

I thought it must be intentional by R2 in the view of the ump for R1 to be out?

Step backwards? :)

Quote:

I wanted to get information on what others think about the situation. I have it on tape and know that interference should have been called, runner on third out on the interference.

Not necessarily. A runner has every right to try and advance to 1B and are not required to check-up just because the fielder is trying to tag them.

For me, the BR would have to intentionally interfere with F3. If the fielder is dumb enough to step in front of the runner, it is not the runner's responsibility to avoid the fielder.

Sounds like interference. The runner apparently deliberately crashed into the fielder trying to tag him. However, if all the runner was doing was running to 1B and the fielder ran over and caused the collision, or if in applying the tag the fielder got tangled with the runner, then I might let it go. I'd have to see it, but I suspect you're right in this case.

Exactly what do you have on tape? The actual play in question or a case play.


[Edited by greymule on Apr 9th, 2004 at 02:50 PM]

Refer to NFHS Rule 8-2 Article 6 and 7. Intent dosen't have basis in the decision. Putting the defense at a disadvantage does.

Actual Play. One of my parents tapes every game. He wanted to edit this one for sound due to some "comments" from the other parents.

I just hope I never see you on the field. the runner has to avoid contact with the fielder if possible. Just because they are going to be tagged out dosen't give them the right to bowl over the defense. It was so clear she wanted to prevent the runner being tagged out at home. Probably why I got dumped for arguing the call into the next inning (well, telling the ump he missed the call).

[Edited by Kevzebra on Apr 9th, 2004 at 02:58 PM]

.
 

Refer to NFHS Rule 8-2 Article 6 and 7. Intent dosen't have basis in the decision. Putting the defense at a disadvantage does.
-------------------------------------------


Thats one reason its tough to judge a rule.. so many leagues/rules, I guess it depends on what league this coach is playing.. intent is a part of ASA 8 2 e&f to get the lead runner called out.

First, you did not specify the sanctioning body and I responded in a general manner.

Two, at no point did you state the runner "bowled over" anyone. You stated the fielder was "run into" by the runner. To me, big difference.

Three, I'll stand by my original ruling under any sanctioning body. The runner does NOT have the absolute responsbility to avoid a defender unless they are attempting to field a batted ball. There is NO rule which requires a runner to cede just because a fielder has the ball. Don't come back and tell me about collisions because that isn't what is addressed by that statement. If you insist intent isn't necesssary to draw INT in this situation, fielders will be coached to jump in front of an oncoming runner and fall to the ground.

Now, to the collision part. If the umpire judges the runner could have avoided the fielder, but attempted to run through them, that is intentional and INT. If they could have avoided the fielder and just chose not to is also interference.

However, you just cannot a runner to stop on a dime and disappear just because they were put out on the tag. If the fielder jumped in front of the advancing runner and it is obvious the runner was doing no more than what they are suppose to do in running to 1B, than it is nothing more than a D.M.F.

BTW, if you wouldn't want to see me on the field, that's your loss, not mine.

" wanted to get information on what others think about the situation"

Do your really want to learn something, or just come here to argue and get your position justified? You start out by stating that a collision occurred. Then you insult the #1 expert on this board. (How to win friends and influence people!) Then you decided that the action was intentional. Then you want us to feel sorry for you because you got tossed. Too bad. I would have tossed you also.

The rule that governs your situation is about "Retired Runners" and it will be consistent in most codes. It requires "Intent" in order to call interference. A retired runner cannot be expected to just go poof and disappear from the field. Defenders steps in front of a runner to apply a tag and gets run down, too bad. A runner slides into a defender standing in front of the base and the defender goes down in a tangle, too bad! Unless the runner takes an action - that is observable to the umpire - that indicates the runner deliberately tried to interfere, you don't have a case.

That is not a mis-interpretation of a rule, that is an umpire judgment. And if you continue to argue judgment calls, you deserve to get tossed.

WMB

You aren't related to Sam, the coach that posts on eteamz, are you?

You have the same characteristic of putting out a parital story, getting some response, flaming the responders, and then telling the rest (or some of the rest) of the story.

Well, besides being customary to specify the rule book you were playing under, you have referenced the wrong rule. Second besides, intent IS required for the call you were looking for ("A1" out).

"A2" is no longer a batter-runner once she has been tagged. Her status now is retired runner, and the applicable rule is 8-6-18. Intent is required. The reason intent is required is because runners are not obligated to give themselves up on a tag play and cannot be expected to go "poof" once they are tagged.

IF it was "so clear" of the retired BR's intent, why did you argue intent was not necessary? If the intent was clear, then calling interference would be the correct call, and calling the other runner out would be correct, too.

Again, NFHS rule 8-6-18. But it is still a judgment call.

The runner is obligated to avoid crashing into the fielder, but otherwise, no, the runner IS NOT obligated to avoid contact with just a couple of exceptions (fielding a batted ball being one of them).

I suppose now you will tell us the BR was screaming and waving her arms all the way.

BTW, I would have thought an umpire and coach of your vast experience would know the proper nomenclature for players in describing a softball play.

Another BTW, coach, your job in this situation is to control yourself (even if the call was wrong) and not incite your fans, argue the call, and get yourself ejected.

The umpire didn't eject you. You did.

Tom correctly wrote:

<b>The umpire didn't eject you. You did.</b>

Isn't this usually the case.

Originally posted by Kevzebra:
<b>
__________________________________________________ _________
I just hope I never see you on the field. the runner has to avoid contact with the fielder if possible.
__________________________________________________ _________
</b>

I dunno, I would think I would read the posts, try to soak it in and see if there might be another viewpoint worth listening too. There is a wealth of knowledge on this board, wouldn't hurt to listen. And yeah, Mike has a pretty heavy load of that knowledge. Most of his posts are extremely well thought out, insightful and darned near always right. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/hoho.gif

But I gotta tell you, your post was poorly presented. You didn't provide nearly enough info to let us picture it correctly. No matter what, it probably was a HTBT play.
( Had To Be There) . From what you presented, I'm guessing this was just a good ole "Train Wreck", play ball. The reasons were previously stated.

Ya know, folks like to tease, kid, pull other folks chain and just genereally have a good time on this board, as opposed to other ones. It's very seldom you ever see where someone slaps someone else down here. Again, it's great for info, opinions and complaints. But it is always in good taste. Ya might even have a couple of opinions about situations and realize you are going with misconceptions instead of the written rule. Again, from your last post, if your'e still going on about the non-call in the next inning, I believe I can understand the blue running out of patience. As a former blue, you probably can too.

Relax, sit back, read the posts and have a good time. By the way, some of the other posters you might pay particular heed to would be Steve M, whiskers_ump (although I think sometimes his thought process is a little water logged, being so close to the coast, doncha know, Skahtboi, mick, Dakota and kono. These guys have been in more important, big games and had some of the craziest situations and always can back their decisions with the rule that you\'ll ever want to hear about.

Well, that\'s about all my back slapping for the whole month, guys.

By the way, welcome to the board.

[Edited by TexBlue on Apr 9th, 2004 at 11:59 PM]

TexBlue

WOW, thanks for adding me in that Elite group.

I am still trying to figure out A1 B1 A2, etc.
How can B1 make a tag. I thought B\'s batted,
and A\'s well....not sure when they entered the
game. Sounds like an illegal entry to me.

Awwwwww, Glen, you know he probably got this situation confused with another sports terms. A1, B2 could probably be something like volleyball, cricket, wrasslin\', maybe backgammon, I\'m not sure. You\'re just gonna hafta wing it, I guess and make the best sense out of it ya can. Is it raingin down thar? Just started up here in God\'s country.