In a clinic recently we were dicussing what is the correct call for this situation....FP college level...runner on thrid, batter draws a walk, walks toward 1st, before she gets to first the catcher throws the ball and hits her in the back,runner has done nothing to provoke the throw, but she is inside the baseline JUST walking towards 1st and gets hit in the back.....what is the call? Does it make a difference whether or not she is before or past the 3 ft line even though she is just walking? Our group had several different views and I am curious how others would call this. Please give me your opinions or if you can cite a page in a book I would appreciate it very much.

Cam

Cam,
I can see where this would generate a really interesting discussion. Was there a consensus at the end of the discussion?
As I see this, if this is before the 3-foot lane, then this must be a no-call. Since we're before the 3-foot lane, there is no requirement for the batter-runner to be anywhere - except on her way to the base.
If this happens past the 3-foot lane, I'm still going to have a no-call in this case. Looking in this year's NCAA book, your play does not meet the requirements of calling this interference. Rule 9, Section 9, Article d on page 88, in speaking of this runner's lane sez she must be "running". Your play has her walking.
I know that this is playing word games, but doing so provides a definitive answer. "Obviously" there is no intent to go beyond 1B prior to the bad throw, so without the bad throw, there is no play to be made at 1B.

Most of the other guys are the experts but here is my view.

On the awarded 1st base on a walk there is no play being made on the batter-runner between home and 1st even though it is a live ball so she does not have to stay within the 3ft line and I believe if you think the play was intentional you would eject the catcher. Anyway thats my thought now will sit back and let the pros gave you the correct response.

Don,
The college game is a whole 'nother world than high school and many of the ASA classes. Part of the difference is that the vast majority of the coaches are professionals - as in they earn their livelyhood by coaching softball. The coaches in the conference that I normally work know the book as well as most umps and better than quite a few. The NCAA rules pretty much match ASA's, but there are some differences. As I see it, many of the differences are through the "exactness" of the terms used. That's the main reason I "played the word game" by saying it that her walking instead of running meant the requirements weren't met. I'll say this, if she's running, beyond the 3-foot lane, and outside of it - you'd better call an out.

Sorry, but I haven't gotten a 2001 NCAA rule book, but from the 2000 book:

Rule 12, Section 2 Base Awards.

a. First base. The batter is awarded first base with no liability to be put out:
1. After "ball four."
Effect - The ball is live unless blocked. The batter may advance beyond first base with liability to be put out. If forced. each base runner advances one base with no liability to be put out. If not forced, each base runner may advance with liability to be put out.


Sounds pretty straight forward to me. If the batter-runner is merely advancing to first, and with no intention of interfering with a play, she cannot be put out.

Here is the origin of the question. Under 2001 NFHS rules change, interference is called on the batter-runner in this situation if the batter-runner is not within the three foot running lane and is hit by a thrown ball from F2. Expect to see this removed in the 2002 Rules. Only NFHS addresses this one situation directly, as far as I know everyone else still leaves it as a judgement call as to intent to interfere.

GOS,
I can't find my listing right now, so don't take this as absolute. I do not recall seeing this as one of the rule changes that the NFHS softball rules committee is considering at all, let alone for 2002.

Last year on the FED Softball rules site there was a rules interp "Situation (#1 I think)" that said with R1 on 3rd and a walk to the BR. If, while advancing to 1st beyond 30 feet, the batter was outside the 3 foot lane the batter was struck with a thrown ball from F2, then the batter would be out for interference and R3 would be returned to 3rd.

This interp is not there this year, so I don't know if the interp has changed or the FED just decided that it did not bear repeating again.

Now all of this has nothing to do with the NCAA rules, but it might give some prospective as to where the idea came from.

--Sam

Help with ruling........
 

All of the subjects each of you have mentioned were all discussed. All the pro's and con's were tossed around and still no definite answer was decided upon. I beleive that the runner(walker) going to first has done nothing wrong and is entitled to the base clearly and if the catcher throws and hits her this could possibly be looked at as an intentional action by the catcher and in turn be ejected for said action. Also on top of it all the ball remains alive and the runner on 3rd is entitled to run. So, as we all are entitled to think indepently this kind of problem will be one that will be resolved differently when it happens. Thanks for all of your advice and ideas.

I attended a NFHS clinic in Aberdeen, MD last night and the interpretation was that the runner outside the 3' lane would be out for interference if hit with a thrown ball to first.

I still don't agree with the call, but that is the Fed interpretation.

On the other hand, there is always the judgement that the catcher intentionally threw the ball AT the runner. It could cause injury to a player. Sounds like unsportsmanlike conduct to me. Get me a new catcher, coach.

I'd think you would have to consider several items.

Was the runner "running" to first as if she was going to attempt second or was she mearly stroling down the line removing her batting glove?

Was F3 in position to receive the throw?

Was the throw a quality throw?

Were other runners on base and were they leading off as intending a double steal?

All this being considered, you would use the totality of the circumstances to make your judgement. I know the Fed ruling, but I don't think the fact that the runner was out of the lane and was struck by a thrown ball is "always" interference. The rule itself does not speek to being hit by a thrown ball, but intefering with the fielding or throwing. (I've got no official ruling or cite, just common practice and history for this area,although I've never seen this excact play occur on a BOB.)

Roger Greene,
member UT

Valid defensive play
 

Many of the replies on this topic state or imply that the catcher was intentionally trying to hit the BR to record an out. Perhaps not.

F2 throwing to F3 in this circumstance is a valid defensive play to stop the BR from attempting a quick steal of 2nd to either draw the throw & score the runner on 3rd, or get a safe steal because F2 keeps the ball to hold the runner at third.

Perhaps BR walking is an attempt to catch the defense napping, and perhaps BR walking outside the 3' lane is slow-motion interference.

All of this is judgment, but calling the BR out for interference may very well be justified.

I have searched high and low for the notes I took at our COPE meeting that covered this situation (fifty lashes for taking my soccer notebook that night and having soccer business aftewards.....they may be lost forever......I promise to not let this happen again.....yeah, right!).

I am having to rely on my feeble memory on this one. I believe our UIC covered this situation similar to how Mike Rowe related it.......

Call the interference with other runners on.....and if you think the catcher threw with the intent to hit the runner.....have a chat with the coach about unsportsmanlike conduct.....possibly a disqualification of the catcher.

The coaches at the COPE meeting were all told that this would NOT be a situation they could count on getting a cheap out and if we believed it was a deliberate attempt at hitting the BR by F2.....we would report it to the State Association.

Joel

Okay, I think we pretty much have the NFHS ruling that this should be called interference by interpretation if nothing else.

Now, I'm going to review it in accordance with ASA's rulebook.

Rule 1 Base on Balls. A base on balls permits a batter to gain first base without liability to be put out and is awarded to a batter by the umpire when four pitches are judged to be out of the strike zone.

8.1.C The Batter Becomes a Batter-Runner when four balls have been called by the umpire. The batter-runner is awarded first base.

8.2.E Batter-Runner is Out when he runs outside the three-foot (0.91m) lane and, in the judgement of the umpire, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base;
<snip concerning batted ball>

8.2.F Batter-Runner is Out when the batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box, makes contact with a fair btted ball before reaching first base, or (fast pitch only) interferes with a dropped third strike. If this interference, in the umpire's judgement, is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the runner closest to home plate shall be called out. A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference.

POE #28. A.3 Runner interference includes intentionally interfering with a thrown ball.

-------------------------------------------------------

I think ASA makes it clear that for an offensive player to interfere with a thrown ball, the umpire must judge his/her intention to interfere with the play.

Of course, that doesn't mean that getting hit is the back means it is unintentional. If you see a runner deviate from a direct path into an obvious throwing lane, that could be construed as intent to interfere with a thrown ball.

This is just the way I look at the play and I'm sure there are others out there who will disagree, but I would feel comfortable using the information above in making my ruling.

I believe also in the above situation in what ever level your calling part of good umpiring is knowing players and teams tendencies as much as possible so in a way this is one of those plays you have to see. Were was F3 would be one question was she at 1st expecting the throw if she was the batter-runner should know she better be inside the running lane.

Is it the catcher normal practice to throw down to 1st on walks? What was the catcher's reaction after the throw? Did it look like an errant throw or purpose throw? Does the catcher's team shown a tendency of playing dirty ball?

The runner has she or her team shown a habit of doing this then when they get to 1st turn to 2nd or not? Was there or has there been any bad blood between the teams?

I believe all these thing and more sometimes have to come into a umpire decision when they make a call on a play like this


Just my thoughts

Don

I think we all agreed on this discussion that if before the 3-foot line, this is a no-call. Our lack of agreement was when the batter-runner was beyond the 3-foot line. I was with several ASA heavyweights this past weekend - both in position/title and in size. This play came up in our discussions and the consensus of us all - probably more important that these three regional uic's, two state uic's, and several other pretty solid umps - anyway the consensus was that this is not interference. There is no play that can legally be made on the batter-runner until after she reaches 1B. She is entitled to 1B as an award for the walk and gets 1B without liability (read that as no legal play on her) to be put out. I know these folks were all speaking ASA rather than NCAA, but most of us in this talk also do NCAA ball and felt that NCAA matches ASA in this situation.

Thought I'd bring this beast back to life for an additional bit of discussion. The situation was that a batter was walked, was walking to 1B, beyond the 3-foot line, and F2 threw to fielder at 1B. The throw hits BR who is beyond the 3-ft line and still walking to 1B. The folks I was with in the hositality room while at an ASA school included 2 regional uic's, 1 state uic, several ISF umps, and me. The unanimous opinion was that there could be no legal play on BR until after she eached 1B, so this was a dumb move catcher and a live ball. In Pa, at a dinner tonight with my high school umpire chapter, we found that our state high school rules interpreter has a different opinion. According to him - and he's also on the NFHS rules committee - the BR is required to stay in the running lane even when awarded 1B, so this would be a dead ball with BR out on interference - all runners returning to base occupied at the time of interference. Interesting. Essentially the same rule in ASA, Fed, & NCAA but 2 rulings which are as different as they possibly can be.

This is consistent with a situation that was posted on their rules board last year. In that situation, there was an R1 on third and the batter walks, then gets hit by a throwdown to 1st by F2. The ruling there was out for interference.

SteveM is right on this phenomenon. In the Maryland NFHS Clinic, the clinician made a point (and NFHS even developed a tranparency for it) that in Federation ball, the umpire WILL rule interference.

And even before Steve and his crew had these discussions, it was being discussed in the college cafeteria among us that such a ruling is ludicrous at best. The Fed interpretation seems to be a "coach's rule" brought to the table by someone who thought they found a shortcut to an easy out.

I prefer the ASA interpretation and will call it that way for ASA, but if Fed says to call it the other way, that's what I'll. They are paying the freight, so their rules apply regardless of my feelings. But I'm not going to have to worry about it since my HS season has been eliminated by knee surgery.

Mike

Sorry to hear the you had to get cut, Mike. How long are you out? That's a good point, though. When Fed, ASA, or any other group makes a ruling, we go with that when we call their games - regardless of what we think of the ruling. I can just see 1 or 2 of the HS coaches around here going absolutely bananas over that call.

Knee surgery
 

Sorry to hear your having to go through the knee surgery Mike. Been through that myself. Hopefully you will come out better than new.

Remember though..........<b>DO NOT</b> use the Marquis de Sade Clinic for Physical Therapy...........(grin)

Joel

Let me add my sentiments to Joel's and Steve's. We'll try to keep you busy here with goofy situations while yur laid up.

Thanks to all d:-)

I won't see any field action until May at the earliest. However, I've got enough clinics and a school to keep me busy. Of course, it also gives me time to read the rule book to see what I've missed ;-)