interference

gipper · #1 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 08:07am

B1 on first, B2 hits ball and deflects off pitcher's leg. A4 moves forward to field ground ball and is bumped by B1 which causes A4 to miss ball. I know we have probably had this situation here bfore but do we have interefence on this one?

msrock1954 · #2 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 08:27am

Quote:

Originally posted by gipper
B1 on first, B2 hits ball and deflects off pitcher's leg. A4 moves forward to field ground ball and is bumped by B1 which causes A4 to miss ball. I know we have probably had this situation here bfore but do we have interefence on this one?

NFHS Rule 8-6 art.10a say's interfering with a fileder attempting to field a fair batter ball is out!! Now there are those who would argue that since the ball went off the pitchers leg it's no longer a batted ball etc., but I've got interference on this one.

Rachel · #3 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 08:56am

In Fed. the interference needs to be intentional on a deflected ball. I think we have a nuthin. NCAA we have an out for interference.

Dakota · #4 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 09:03am

Quote:

Originally posted by gipper
B1 on first, B2 hits ball and deflects off pitcher's leg. A4 moves forward to field ground ball and is bumped by B1 which causes A4 to miss ball. I know we have probably had this situation here bfore but do we have interefence on this one?

You are applying football or something terminology to a softball situation. I had to reread your situation to understand what you were asking. Here it is in softball nomenclature

Quote:

R1 on first, B2 hits ball and deflects off pitcher's leg. R4 moves forward to field ground ball and is bumped by R1 which causes F4 to miss ball. I know we have probably had this situation here bfore but do we have interefence on this one?

Whose rules?

Speaking ASA, this is a deflected batted ball. The applicable rule is 8-7-J-5. For it to be interference, the act by R1 must be intentional, and F4 must have had an opportunity to make an out.

Fed rules do not address a deflected batted ball. Out in Fed.

Dakota · #5 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 09:04am

Quote:

Originally posted by Rachel
In Fed. the interference needs to be intentional on a deflected ball.

I can't find this, Rachel. Am I missing it?

gipper · #6 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 10:48am

Fed. rule situation.

Rachel · #7 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 08:36pm

I am looking at my rules differences from John Bennett. I don't have my Fed book right now. It says:

NFHS - no mention of ricochet ball. Use same ruling as ASA.
(8-6-10).

I actually had this play earlier this spring and I, of course, killed it and called interference. Unfortunately, it was a high school game.

Dakota · #8 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 11:29pm

Rachel,

That is the opposite interp of what I had been assuming. IOW, I would have made the same call you did.

I wonder how Bennet comes to the conclusion that the ASA interp should be used since NFHS doesn't mention a deflected batted ball. Isn't it still a batted ball? If they make no exception for the deflection, why wouldn't we assume they want it called the same as an ordinary batted ball?

Maybe WMB will come along and offer his expertise on this.

Steve M · #9 (**permalink**) Tue May 17, 2005, 03:42am

Tom,
I am sure that John's logic in applying the ASA ruling when Fed does not provide a ruling is that ASA is the national governing body of softball. If Fed interp's do not cover a situation, use the ASA interp.

I'm looking back through some old emails I have from John, but do not seem to have one that mentions the logic. I was sure I had one - but with inadequate backups over the years and a hard drve crash & death 2 years ago, maybe I lost some.

IRISHMAFIA · #10 (**permalink**) Tue May 17, 2005, 06:29am

Be careful when applying logic to anything, you may get more than what you are bargaining for.

SC Ump · #11 (**permalink**) Tue May 17, 2005, 07:42am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
I wonder how Bennet comes to the conclusion that the ASA interp should be used since NFHS doesn't mention a deflected batted ball.

You got me on that one. But as for why it should be ruled that way... well, doesn't the runners responsibility to not unintentionally get hit by a batted ball end when the ball deflected off the pitcher? The defensive action (of getting hit with the ball) has caused the offensive player to get hit by the ball through no fault of their own. I personally would see this as similar.

When the ball deflects off the pitchers leg, it causes to defense to immediately adjust to field the ball with its new trajectory. I wouldn't expect the offense to be required to immediately know what the defense is going to do and be responsible to immediately adjust to this new situation of getting out of the fielders way.

JMO

Dakota · #12 (**permalink**) Tue May 17, 2005, 08:54am

This was not a situation of a runner being hit by a deflected batted ball. That is a different rule. This was a situation of a runner interfering with a fielder attempting to field a deflected batted ball.

The runner is obligated to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. No rule book gives the runner a pass if the interference was caused by a bad bounce. ASA gives the runner a pass if the interference was caused by a ball deflecting off another fielder. Their logic in this seems obvious.

However, NFHS includes no such exception.

Still looks to me like interference in Fed.