The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 02, 2007, 08:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Charlevoix, MI
Posts: 50
Interference/Lunch Bet

Need help settling this, NFHS.

R1 on 2nd.

Ball hit to F4, play at 1st BR out with plenty of time to not run into F3. F3 has blocked most of the base and BR plows into her hard. Interference call is made.

R1 has rounded 3rd at the time of the interference call.

Question is R1 alway called out, or just returned to third and possibly called out based on the umpires judgment on whether the defense had a play on her.

I haven't looked this up as my books are at home. But I have the lead runner out on interference since the interference occurred after the BR was already out.

The guy, I believe that is buying lunch says that the 2nd out is a judgment call.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 02, 2007, 08:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 4,361
I can't speak for NFHS, but in ASA, if there's no possible play on R1, there's no INT call. If, as a result of F3 being down on the ground, R1 advances to HP, then you would have INT.

I can't imagine NFHS would be that different from ASA, but seeing as how I don't call NFHS, I'll let the NFHS guys confirm it.
__________________
Dave

I haven't decided if I should call it from the dugout or the outfield. Apparently, both have really great views!

Screw green, it ain't easy being blue!

I won't be coming here that much anymore. I might check in now and again.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 02, 2007, 09:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 741
Send a message via Yahoo to MNBlue
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmielke
Question is R1 alway called out, or just returned to third and possibly called out based on the umpires judgment on whether the defense had a play on her.
Rules & Cases Directory
Softball Rules Book 2007
Rule 8: Batter-Runner and Runner
Section 6: The Runner Is Out
Article 18


Art. 18... After being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.
PENTALTY: (Arts. 16, 17, 18) The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Each other runner must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference.


I think the keys are 'INTENTIONALLY' and 'OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PLAY'. Probably a HTBT.

But, to answer your question, no R1 is not always called out. Some thinking, common sense, and umpire judgement are going to have to come into play.
__________________
Mark

NFHS, NCAA, NAFA
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" Anton Chigurh - "No Country for Old Men"
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 02, 2007, 10:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmielke
Need help settling this, NFHS.

R1 on 2nd.

Ball hit to F4, play at 1st BR out with plenty of time to not run into F3. F3 has blocked most of the base and BR plows into her hard. Interference call is made.

R1 has rounded 3rd at the time of the interference call.

Question is R1 alway called out, or just returned to third and possibly called out based on the umpires judgment on whether the defense had a play on her.

I haven't looked this up as my books are at home. But I have the lead runner out on interference since the interference occurred after the BR was already out.

The guy, I believe that is buying lunch says that the 2nd out is a judgment call.

Speaking NFHS, you must ask yourself if the "interference" prevented a play on another runner, as you have already been directed my Mark above. If there is no play, then you have nothing else, except maybe a DQ'ed player if you feel the contact was flagrant and unsportsmanlike.

If there was the possibility of a play, in your judgement, on another player, then the player closest to home would be called out.

Who's buying lunch now?
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 02, 2007, 10:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp
I can't speak for NFHS, but in ASA, if there's no possible play on R1, there's no INT call. If, as a result of F3 being down on the ground, R1 advances to HP, then you would have INT.

I can't imagine NFHS would be that different from ASA, but seeing as how I don't call NFHS, I'll let the NFHS guys confirm it.
Yup. They are pretty much the same.
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 02, 2007, 11:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Charlevoix, MI
Posts: 50
I think that I am getting the free lunch.

This scenario happened in one of my daughters HS games last May.

My daughter was the girl rounding third at the time of the interference. The interference did prevent the play on my daughter at home, so she should have been out as well.

The umpire never killed the play on the interference call, and my daughter scored. They didn't put her on third or call her out! My view was she was out automatically as the play was prevented. To top it off the opposing coach never complained.

My bet over lunch was, is she out automatically as the play was prevented or can the umpire judge whether she would have been out if the play was made. This isn't clear in the OP.

Last edited by tmielke; Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 11:55am.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 03, 2007, 01:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 962
The answer to your specific question is she is out automatically if the umpire judges there was a chance to make a play on the (any other) runner. As the rule was quoted it is interference on the chance to make a play on another runner, NOT the chance to get an out on the other runner. So if there is judgement that the fielder had a chance to throw home to make a play on R1 then she is out whether it was likely there would have been an actual out on R1 or not.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 05, 2007, 07:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 448
Talking

8.6.18 in NFHS Case book situations A & B do not deal with "intentional" interference by base runner.

Sit. A...R1 on 3rd. B2 hits to SS who throws home. Catcher can't make play and R1 scores. Catcher then tries to throw to 2nd to get B2 out. R1 runs into Catcher "after R1 has crossed plate causing her to drop the ball". Ruling runs scores..if umpire judgement says the interference prevented B2 from being put out the umpire will call her out.

Sit. B also states it is umpires judgement on a non-intentional interference.

NFHS (and ASA for that matter) is contradicting itself. In my not so honorable opinion, NFHS should take the guess work out and make the runner closest to home out if retired runner or runner who already scored interferes PERIOD.

ASA took out the intentional part of the rule as should NFHS.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 08:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dholloway1962
8.6.18 in NFHS Case book situations A & B do not deal with "intentional" interference by base runner.

Sit. A...R1 on 3rd. B2 hits to SS who throws home. Catcher can't make play and R1 scores. Catcher then tries to throw to 2nd to get B2 out. R1 runs into Catcher "after R1 has crossed plate causing her to drop the ball". Ruling runs scores..if umpire judgement says the interference prevented B2 from being put out the umpire will call her out.

Sit. B also states it is umpires judgement on a non-intentional interference.

NFHS (and ASA for that matter) is contradicting itself. In my not so honorable opinion, NFHS should take the guess work out and make the runner closest to home out if retired runner or runner who already scored interferes PERIOD.

ASA took out the intentional part of the rule as should NFHS.
So you are saying that a runner should just go "poof" and disappear once she touches the plate? BTW, B2 was the runner closest to home.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 06:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
So you are saying that a runner should just go "poof" and disappear once she touches the plate? BTW, B2 was the runner closest to home.
Not sure which part I misspoke on but that wasn't what I meant...I meant if a runner alreay put out or runner already scored interferes, either intentionally or unintentionally, the runner closest to home should be called out. When they ask umpires to judge whether or not a play could be made is too much guesswork.

Hope that clears up what I meant to say.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 10:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dholloway1962
When they ask umpires to judge whether or not a play could be made is too much guesswork.
First of all, that is what we are paid to do, make calls based on our judgement. It really isn't difficult at all, in most cases, to decide whether or not a play could have been made. There are those rules in every rule code of which I am aware that ask us to make this type of decision.
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 07, 2007, 10:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skahtboi
First of all, that is what we are paid to do, make calls based on our judgement. It really isn't difficult at all, in most cases, to decide whether or not a play could have been made. There are those rules in every rule code of which I am aware that ask us to make this type of decision.
Never insinuited we don't make alot of judgement calls in a game. But this is the only one I can think of where we have to judge a player's ability.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interference? tzme415 Softball 4 Mon Jan 30, 2006 09:33pm
Runner interference versus umpire interference Jay R Baseball 1 Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm
Interference? DownTownTonyBrown Softball 17 Mon Mar 31, 2003 06:22pm
interference refjef40 Softball 12 Fri Mar 21, 2003 09:31am
Interference Larry Softball 5 Thu Jun 06, 2002 09:31am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:28pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1