R1 at 1B. BR Bunts up first base line. F3 bobbles batted ball and is in fouls territory. BR runs into fair territory to avaid crash and is subsequently hit by thrown ball from F3 to F4. Called dead ball BR out and all heck breaks loose. Off Coach says girl went to fair territroy to avoid F3. My partner and I discussed it and ended up with R1 at 2nd and BR on 1st (now R2) with no outs. Game played under NCAA rules. I can find a number of different ways I can interpret the book to get an out w/ R1 on 2nd or 3rd and I can also justify where we ended up. Any suggestions on how this should or could have gone?

Sounds like there should have been no call. BR did what she had to do to avoid INT, has no responsibility to avoid the throw.

A question though, did F3 bobble INTO foul territory? I am assuming first touch was fair.

I don't do NCAA, but IMHO if F3 bobble the ball into foul territory and the runner was struck by the thrown ball in fair territory, I don't see how the runner could interfere with the player covering first in receiving the throw.

No call, play on.

Sounds like if F3 touched the ball first in foul territory, then it's a foul ball, and hence, a dead ball. Strike one.

How about clearing up where the ball, the fielder, and/or the ball and the fielder were when the fielder fielded the ball.

Bluefoot, I think he meant that the ball, after it was bobbled in fair territory, wound up in foul territory. I would hope no umpire gave the B-R first base on a foul ball!

My understanding has always been that if the BR runs out of the three foot lane to avoid a fielder fielding the ball, there is no subsequent penalty if they are hit by the thrown ball. Obviously a judgement call, and probably a HTBT one.

<i>R1 at 1B. BR Bunts up first base line. F3 bobbles batted ball and is in fouls territory. </i>
__________________________________________________ _____

This sorta kinda, tells me ball and F3 are in foul territory.

So until I hear otherwise, foul ball, reset, play on.
__________________________________________________ _____
<i>BR runs into fair territory to avaid crash and is subsequently hit by thrown ball from F3 to F4. Called dead ball BR out and all heck breaks loose. Off Coach says girl went to fair territroy to avoid F3. My partner and I discussed it and ended up with R1 at 2nd and BR on 1st (now R2) with no outs. Game played under NCAA rules. I can find a number of different ways I can interpret the book to get an out w/ R1 on 2nd or 3rd and I can also justify where we ended up. Any suggestions on how this should or could have gone?</i>

Where was F4 - in fair on 1B or in foul on 1B? Was this a quality throw. I'm not sure from your description, but it almost sounds as if this was not a quality throw. If it was not a quality throw, then the B-R did not interfere with F4's effort to catch the thrown ball.

Assuming the F3 bobbled the ball into foul therefore Br must be played out .
ISF
This is an anomaly in the rules .
Normally when this happens ie a throw from foul territory the 1st baseman ( or whoever takes the the throw will reverse the base they stand on ie will stand on the safety base and the BR takes the other base .)
However if this didnt happen Br must still head for the safety base .
Now the anomally is if they get hit inside the diamond from a throw to first from fair or foul territory the we have dead ball interference BR out and all runners return to where they were at the pitch .
At last years ISF clinic we had here in NZ Merle Butler was questioned on this and said it is up for discussion for 2005 rule changes .

The ball was first touched in Fair Territory (obviously)
the throw was good but the BR and F4 were both in Fair territory. the BR was hit in the back of the helmet by a good online throw.

I hioep htis helps clear up any confussion.

"BR Bunts up first base line. F3 bobbles batted ball and is in fouls territory."

This is what you wrote in your original posdt. There is nothing obvious by this that the ball was first touched in fair territory. In fact, your statement says it's a foul ball.

Maybe if you learned how to spell, used proper grammar, and how to structure a sentence, you might be understood.

Bob

Bob:

I apologize for not being a Rhodes Scholar. In the future I will keep my questions in oral form and only at a local level. This will insure that I am getting the answers I need and no one else is bothered by trying to learn from my mistakes both on and off the field.

However, in my defense, I do believe it is fairly obvious that the ball was a fair ball. Otherwise everything else described in the play is pointless because it all happened with a dead ball.

As poor as my grammer and spelling are, I am a good enough umpire to know what to do in a foul ball situation and do not need to go to a national forum to ask help on that.

Thanks

Sticky Situation at 1st
 

outathm - sounds like you still have some doubt in your own mind as to whether you would rule the same way again if this was to happen again.

unfortunately for the runner, whilst they may run outside the 3-foot line to avoid INT if they are hit inside the diamond on a good throw (which you indicate it was) then they have created INT. As noted earlier, Merle Butler brought up this very play. His question was how long will it be before the runner becomes the "duck on the pond".

When all said and done, the safety base was introduced to prevent these closer than close plays yet this abnomaly in the rule will need to be addressed at the ISF congress, and most probably the ASA congress also.

PLease advise how you and your partner reasoned the runner would be safe.

Re: Sticky Situation at 1st
 

ASA addressed it a few years back. ISF addresses it in quite a vague manner in 8.2.g.1.note. At least that gives the umpire some room to rule in favor of a runner forced out of the lane.

Anytime a play is coming from foul territory, the 3'/1m lane is extended that distance into fair territory and the players involved may use either base.

I'm having trouble visualizing this.

The ball is in foul territory. The BR is in fair territory. The throw is on-line toward F3 at first base. How in the world does this ball hit the BR?

If the ball is thrown from foul territory and is a quality throw straight toward first base, how could it cross into fair territory without being caught? Only way I can see this happening is if F3 is for some reason stretching toward the pitcher to catch this ball coming to him from foul ground and it hits the BR in their last step before hitting the base.

Honestly, this sounds like a non-quality throw to me.

Here it is as clear as I can make it.

F3 attempted to field a fair ball. Ball in fair territory, F3 in Foul Territory.

BR goes in to fair territory to avoid contact with F3 who has boobles the batted ball.

F3 picks up ball finnally and thows ball into back of the BR who is in fair territory up the line but not at the bag.

Ruled that BR avoided contact and hence was not guilty of interference.

Have been since told by another Blue I respect (ISF, NCAA D1) that should have called Obs on F3 and awarded BR 1B.

OK, based on this description, I do not have any call - except probably safe at 1B. F3, while fielding the batted ball is the protected fielder, B-R must yield and F3 can not obstruct (unless something else done intentionally). F3's attempt to field the ball put B-R out of the running lane, so no interference on B-R unless B-R does something intentional.

How could anyone determine that OBS has occured on this?
Just curious.

While the fielder has the right to field a batted ball, OBS can occur when she is chasing a bobbled ball. This is an interp I heard at a recent clinic. It would be a huge stretch for me to call OBS, but I guess it could be possible. In this scenario I still see the BR moving to allow the fielder access, and I can not see OBS, nor INT.

The Blue I talked to said once she had attempted to field the ball and booted it she had to give ground to the Off player. I'm not all that clear on the reasoning here either, but I eanted to throw all the imput I;ve recieved out there. I am gathering that the right call is BR at first as R2. This is where we ended up, but we had a mad coach (as if that is a surprise).

As a PS I might as well add that about three innings later he told me that he wanted to protest the game. I told him that he had until the next pitch Legal or Ill. to do so, he said, "Well, that must be some new NCAA thing." It was all I could do to not laugh.

Other than this incident we had a fairly smooth game.

Sounds that way to me also mcrowder, but if F3 was leading the throw to F4 coming in to cover it could be possible. I rather think that F3 had been coached to "plunk" the runner.

F3 was throwing the finally fielded ball to F4

To JFL
This seems to be the case and is the point NZUMPIRE makes as to Merle Butlers comment the runner being the "duck in the pond ".
Where in the rules does it state the running lane reverses when a throw is from foul territory ?
Its sensible but no rule yet .

I see now - the whole play was right on the baseline - got it now.

I don't see OBS unless F3 did something egregious, but I surely don't see INT either. (As mentioned above by Mike, I've been told in clinics that when the ball is in foul territory, the running lane extends 3 feet on the fair side as well).

All that said, what do you do. See, I gotta know what you guys call so I can stop looking sike an idiot on the field.

That would be a reversal of what I've witnessed in past NCAA clinics. In those, they wanted the fielder protected forever.

In one of the first NCAA clinics I attended, there was a given scenario that had F5 have the ball run up her arm and behind her into foul territory. The fielder dove backwards for the ball and into a runner retreating to 3B. The prescribed call was INT on the runner.

Personally, I would hope they moved off that dime, but not to the extent as is stated above. It seems to me the status of a batted ball remains a batted ball until it is caught/fielded or enters dead-ball territory.

Wow!
 

In my mind that would be a terrible call. Defense boots their opportunity to make a play and incidentally then bumps the runner legally returning to 3rd so they won't be tagged. Umpire calls "Time. Interference. Runner is out."

Mike, I'll bet you've never made that call. Holy Smokes! That would create a brouhaha.

Only if interference were intentionally committed by the runner would I have anything besides a fielding error.

Check NFHS casebook play 2.21.1 Situation C. F2 fumbles a third strike into the batter's path. Batter unintentionally kicks ball away from F2. I would say this is even a little more serious than a minor/secondary collision caused by the fielder. Correct ruling from the casebook is no-call - live ball.

Ooooppps!
 

As I was putting away my reference material I noticed it was a baseball rulebook and casebook. Sorry!

There is no such situation in the softball casebook. But I would still rule the same... I think.

Interference is generally called when the offense is in the wrong place (outside the running lane for a regular play from F2 to F3 from inside the diamond), OR they intentionally interfere. To call a runner out because a fielder jumps into them after booting a play is just not right.

Baseball?
 

Tony's got a baseball book?! What the heck is he doing lurking in this forum?

There goes all my credibility on this board. Dang it! :D

Re: Baseball?
 

Damn, skippy, you did!!!

This was a clinic at the Annenberg Center in Philadelphia. Like I said, a few years back. Katy Kashow (sp?) was the coach of Penn at the time.

As the clinic was winding down, she came out of the shadows and noted that she noticed the umpires groan when that play was given. She basically said, "You will call the game our way or you won't umpire NCAA ball, period!"

And people wonder why I think coaches carry a bit too much weight in NCAA ball!

Re:Sticky Situation at 1st
 

ISF have no such rule as yet, hence Merle's comment.

Softball New Zealand are proposing to submit a rule amendment to address this issue, at congress this year.

I am reading interference has to be intentional to be called .
Wow is this the interretation of many on this board .