HS scrimmage last Sat - dome ball. I'm on the bases.

No runners on base. Batter receives a BOB. As she is trotting down to 1st, F2 stands ready, in fair territory, arm cocked. I'm thinking - she' gonna plunk that runner the moment she steps into fair territory. BR stays on the foul side, so nothing happens.

Didn't look to me like F2 was going to make a legitimate attempt to stop a BR advance to 2nd, since the way she was positioned, she would have been throwning behind the runner to F3 instead of ahead of the runner to F4. Looked to me like she was preparing to "draw" the 3' violation call.

Fortunately, BR stayed where she belonged, or I would have had a quiet conversation with the D-coach about having his F2 sit out the rest of the scrimmage.

You guys who have more experience with Fed ball (WMB? others?)... what do you think? If F2 had thrown at BR out of the running lane, what would you have done? Go with the book / interp call and declare BR out? Or, go with your instinct that this was intentional?

I'm not trying to resurrect the "is this a good interp by NFHS" discussion we've had several times. I'm (as an ASA ump relatively new to NFHS) trying to get the ruling right according to NFHS.

[Edited by Dakota on Mar 29th, 2005 at 01:16 PM]

I am guessing that you meant "as she was trotting down to 1st."

From what you are describing, I would have to agree that it sounds as though she was not preparing to prevent the runner from advancing to second, so therefore she probably was wanting to draw the lane violation, and that sounds as though it was something that may have been coached. I think, that in the situation you have given, I would probably have to go with my instinct that this was intentional, and have a talk with the coach of the D team.

I must be missing or dont know enough about this sitch or something. How does any of this 'draw' a lane violation?

I dont really understand your post.

Does "plunk" mean "bean with the ball"?

The catcher was watching the quickie steal to 2nd on a BOB IMO. She was probably standing to the 1b side of home plate to make a play at 1b or 2b?

I dont think they were trying to draw a running lane violation or "plunk" the batter.. which is kind of hard to "draw" a runner out of the lane to intentionally interfere with a throw.

What case book play are you thinking of? 8.2.5,6.?

Yes, thanks. I've corrected my post.

Not exactly. "Bean" means throw to the head. I just meant throw at the runner.

Possible, but from where F2 was standing and facing (she was in fair territory, facing 1st base, so she as at a wrong angle to throw to 2nd), it seemed unlikely she was ready to throw to 2nd should the runner make a try.

By "draw" the call, I mean to throw at the runner to call attention to the runner being out of the running lane rather than trying to make a legitimate play.

NFHS Softball Guide 2005 POE - "Ruling on Three-Foot Lane Interference", Play 3.

I dunno Dakota, to throw at that runner would be so dumb you wouldnt need to sit her down, the coach probably would have flipped his lid. IMO, you were reading to much into it. I dont agree with the angle stuff, etc. That girls been watching runners take off to 2B since 12U league games. But I guess thats just my .02.

I dont have that book. I'll have to look for it. I got the rule book and case book.

Not that you were doing this, but I'm sure you know reading a rule (poe, case play) then going to a game watching for a chance to call it is a big no no.


[Edited by wadeintothem on Mar 29th, 2005 at 01:20 PM]

You guys who have more experience with Fed ball (WMB? others?)... what do you think?

I am with you all the way on this, Tom. As you know, I've already argued against this on the NFHS Board.

As far as I am concerned, there is no reason whatsoever to throw the ball to 1B if you do not have a runner on 3B. If you want to guard against the B-R going to second the best place for the ball is in the pitcher's hand. She is in the best position on the field to control the runner, and as soon as the runner stops, the LBR is in effect.

So - in that situation, if the B-R is outside the line and the catcher plunks her - NO CALL (other than a warning for USC).

However, if there is a runner on 3rd, then you have a legitimate play to keep the B-R trapped at 1B and prevent her from game-playing between 1B and 2B in an attempt to get the runner home. Then you want the ball in the hands of F3. She can make the runner stop at 1B, she is facing home, and she has a good (short) throw back to the plate if the runner breaks. In that case, if the B-R is outside the lane and stops the ball, then I will call interference.

WMB

Seems to me that is just what I've been saying will happen since the Fed came out with the interpretation only to be refuffed by those who believe it is a good interp every time the discussion begins.

I agree with Tom and WMB. I have not seen the play this year, however,
the first year FED brought this into being, I had it once. In that
case I ruled the runner out for interference. Which I later thought
about and realized that was no practical reason for the catcher to
throw the ball. No one was on base. However, I was playing FED
rules, and that is what they wanted.