The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Interference? (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/19797-interference.html)

rwest Mon Apr 18, 2005 03:28pm

Rule 8-7-P says

When, after being declared out or after scoring, a runner INTENTIONALLY interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.

I was calling a game up at my church and had the following happen. Now this was a minor league baseball game with young kids. I guess probably in the 4th/5th grades. I know its baseball and this is a softball forum, but I do mainly slow pitch softball and was wondering how this play would be called in softball.

R1 advancing from third on a base hit. He scores. The defense had thrown home to get him out, but overthrew the catcher. The ball went to the back stop. The catcher recovered the ball. R2 is also advancing home. Here's were the problem occurred. R1 is still standing on the plate, forcing the catcher to either go around R1 or through him. Would you consider this interference? I really don't believe it was intentional and by rule it has to be in order to call interference. The kids are still learning the game at this age. So what would you call?

I put R2 back on third base without an out and allowed R1's run to score.


AtlUmpSteve Mon Apr 18, 2005 03:58pm

I would consider that interference. R1 has no business standing at the plate under any circumstances, and I could not consider that coincidental.

Alameda Mon Apr 18, 2005 04:02pm

Pre-emptive umpiring?

With younger kids and older (new to the game clueless adults) is there anything wrong with suggesting to R1, "you might want to get off the plate so you don't get called for interference."? Or something to that effect?

wadeintothem Mon Apr 18, 2005 04:06pm

A "do over" is probably fine for church league goofy ball with little kids.. but at any other level either its interference or its not.. no do overs.




wadeintothem Mon Apr 18, 2005 04:07pm

and taking a nap on home plate is intentional interfence IMO.

Alameda Mon Apr 18, 2005 04:09pm

Yea, I hear ya wade. I was speaking of suggesting that to him before the next runner got there, i.e. avoiding the intereference all together. No do over.

But it's probably best to just call the game the way the rules state, and let thier manager explain to them what they did wrong and how to avoid it in the future.

Good call blue. http://team-xf.com/members/dogma/gifs/salutesmile.gif

[Edited by Alameda on Apr 18th, 2005 at 05:14 PM]

rwest Tue Apr 19, 2005 07:10am

By rule, it has to be intentional
 
Quote:

Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve
I would consider that interference. R1 has no business standing at the plate under any circumstances, and I could not consider that coincidental.
What would you rule on this....


R1 on 3B, B2 squeeze bunts and the ball is spinning backwards toward home plate. As R1 slides safely across the plate their hand contacts the ball in fair territory.

Ruling?

IRISHMAFIA Tue Apr 19, 2005 09:23am

Re: By rule, it has to be intentional
 
Quote:

Originally posted by rwest


What would you rule on this....


R1 on 3B, B2 squeeze bunts and the ball is spinning backwards toward home plate. As R1 slides safely across the plate their hand contacts the ball in fair territory.

Ruling?

B2 is out, run scores unless B2 did not reach 1B prior to the interference and this was the 3rd out.


rwest Tue Apr 19, 2005 09:43am

Re: Re: By rule, it has to be intentional
 
Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Quote:

Originally posted by rwest


What would you rule on this....


R1 on 3B, B2 squeeze bunts and the ball is spinning backwards toward home plate. As R1 slides safely across the plate their hand contacts the ball in fair territory.

Ruling?

B2 is out, run scores unless B2 did not reach 1B prior to the interference and this was the 3rd out.


Actually, this is a case play (8.8-51) and the correct ruling is

The ball is live, R1 scores and no interference is called on R1 because the contact was unintentional. (8-7P; 5-5)


shipwreck Tue Apr 19, 2005 09:45am

Why isn't R1 out(touching a fair batted ball) and negate the run? Why does it have to be intentional? If a batted ball hits a runner who is off the base and it hasn't passed a fielder, the runner is out without it being intentional. Why if they touch the ball is it any different? Dave

[Edited by shipwreck on Apr 19th, 2005 at 10:51 AM]

rwest Tue Apr 19, 2005 09:52am

Because it was unintentional
 
Quote:

Originally posted by shipwreck
Why isn't R1 out(touching a fair batted ball) and negate the run? Dave
By rule it has to be intentional. In this play it was considered incidental contact. Of course, if in your judgement it was intentional, then the batter-runner would be out. You don't negate the run. This too is by rule. The run counts and then the runner closest to home is out. In this case that would be the batter-runner. Of course this is all based on intent. If you judged it to be incidental, then the ball is live, the run scores and the batter-runner is safe or out at 1st depending on the throw.

P.S. I posted the above before you edited your reply. To complete my answer, the reason is that the run had scored before the interference. In your example with the runner being off base and being hit by a ball, the runner had not scored nor was he put out before the interference occurred. In Rule 8-7-P it says "When, after being declared out or after scoring,....". So there's the difference.





[Edited by rwest on Apr 19th, 2005 at 10:56 AM]

IRISHMAFIA Tue Apr 19, 2005 02:03pm

Trust me, I can sell that out.

8.7.P refers to interfering with a fielder, not contacting a fair batted ball.

Since R1 scored, s/he is no longer a runner. I don't see where this is any different than a blocked ball by the offensive team if the catcher, in the umpire's judgment, had a valid play at 1B.


rwest Tue Apr 19, 2005 02:11pm

8.7.P is applicable
 
Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Trust me, I can sell that out.

8.7.P refers to interfering with a fielder, not contacting a fair batted ball.

Since R1 scored, s/he is no longer a runner. I don't see where this is any different than a blocked ball by the offensive team if the catcher, in the umpire's judgment, had a valid play at 1B.


Interfering with a fair batted ball is interfering with a defensive player's opportunity to make an out. Nothing in 8.7.P states that the interference is with the fielder, just his opportunity to make an out. Also, it's referenced in the Case Play.

As far as selling the out, I'm sure I could too. However, is it right to sell a call even when the rules don't support it? In the case describe (case play 8.8-51) it is ASA's position that interference should not be ruled if the contact was incidental. Of course this is umpires judgement and we are all on the honor system, but if you really believe it was not intentional, by rule and by the case book, you have to rule it a live ball and no out.



[Edited by rwest on Apr 19th, 2005 at 03:29 PM]

IRISHMAFIA Wed Apr 20, 2005 08:41am

Re: 8.7.P is applicable
 
Quote:

Originally posted by rwest


Interfering with a fair batted ball is interfering with a defensive player's opportunity to make an out.

Actually, it states "make a play" on another runner, not an out.

Quote:

As far as selling the out, I'm sure I could too. However, is it right to sell a call even when the rules don't support it?
Apparently, you didn't see the ;) at the top of my post. Even though I do not necessarily agree with the rule, obviously I would call it as prescribed by the rules.

rwest Wed Apr 20, 2005 08:43am

Re: Re: 8.7.P is applicable
 
Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Quote:

Originally posted by rwest


Interfering with a fair batted ball is interfering with a defensive player's opportunity to make an out.

Actually, it states "make a play" on another runner, not an out.

Quote:

As far as selling the out, I'm sure I could too. However, is it right to sell a call even when the rules don't support it?
Apparently, you didn't see the ;) at the top of my post. Even though I do not necessarily agree with the rule, obviously I would call it as prescribed by the rules.

OOPS! You're right. I didn't see the smiley! Sorry!

By the way, how do you insert smiley's into the post? Is that something you do with an external application or is there some feature on the officialforum that you are using?



[Edited by rwest on Apr 20th, 2005 at 09:46 AM]

IRISHMAFIA Wed Apr 20, 2005 08:51am

Re: Re: Re: 8.7.P is applicable
 
Quote:

Originally posted by rwest


By the way, how do you insert smiley's into the post? Is that something you do with an external application or is there some feature on the officialforum that you are using?

I just typed a ; and ), however, there are sites which supply this and other icons to which others on this board are much more adept than I.


rwest Wed Apr 20, 2005 08:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: 8.7.P is applicable
 
Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Quote:

Originally posted by rwest


By the way, how do you insert smiley's into the post? Is that something you do with an external application or is there some feature on the officialforum that you are using?

I just typed a ; and ), however, there are sites which supply this and other icons to which others on this board are much more adept than I.


Oh, so the site must convert it automatically! Like this ;)

Dakota Wed Apr 20, 2005 09:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 8.7.P is applicable
 
Quote:

Originally posted by rwest
Oh, so the site must convert it automatically! Like this ;)
Right. When you are in the reply window, there is a link in the small print above that says Smilies. Click this link and you can see all of the canned smilies and what you type ... :D :confused: :eek: etc.

Also in that fine print is a link that says vB code. Click that one and it will explain how to use vB code to do all kinds of things, including embedding images and embedding URL links.

There are some web sites that provide the small .gif files for a large variety of smilies and allow you to live link into them. To use these, you embed the image using vB code.

This board also supports HTML for even more tricks, if you want and know some of the HTML tags.

rhsc Thu Apr 21, 2005 07:39am

Oh boy, now Mike has a new toy. Next he will be downloading them like I did. Nothing but luv for ya Mike.

whiskers_ump Thu Apr 21, 2005 08:52am

I will just about bet my house that you won't see Mike playing
with the "smilies". Not his thing. Although now and then he will
throw one at you to make a point.

Dutch Alex Fri Apr 22, 2005 04:31am

I know I got the wrong out!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by rwest

Interfering with a fair batted ball is interfering with a defensive player's opportunity to make an out. Nothing in 8.7.P states that the interference is with the fielder, just his opportunity to make an out. Also, it's referenced in the Case Play.

As far as selling the out, I'm sure I could too. However, is it right to sell a call even when the rules don't support it? In the case describe (case play 8.8-51) it is ASA's position that interference should not be ruled if the contact was incidental. Of course this is umpires judgement and we are all on the honor system, but if you really believe it was not intentional, by rule and by the case book, you have to rule it a live ball and no out.
[/B]
Indoor game, last year. Dutch national team vs a dutch clubteam. R1 comes home after a hit to SS. She grounded out at home plate by more thant 1,5 meters. Still she slides. When catcher makes an attempt to make an extra out at 1st base, she's swept on the ground by the runner, who's already out.
By rule, the next runner close to homeplate, should be declared out. I gave BR out.
Even national coach eat my explanation that the play, by catcher, was made against BR. So she should be decared out... Indeed, how do you sell it!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1