The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 15, 2006, 04:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,264
retired runner

I know this is old business, but have patience. This quote is from an old post about a runner sliding into 2nd and taking out teh SS. I have a couple questions about it.
"... under ASA rules (and NFHS). There, interference by a retired runner must be intentional. Some would say that a pop-up slide was intentional, but as you described it, I don't see that as an intentional act to interfer or to break up a DP. I would have "no call.""

1) Does this still apply in NFHS and ASA?
2) What about an upright runner, forced out 2 - 4 steps from the base?
3) Are the answers to 1 and 2 also true for NCAA?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 15, 2006, 05:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
I know this is old business, but have patience. This quote is from an old post about a runner sliding into 2nd and taking out teh SS. I have a couple questions about it.
"... under ASA rules (and NFHS). There, interference by a retired runner must be intentional. Some would say that a pop-up slide was intentional, but as you described it, I don't see that as an intentional act to interfer or to break up a DP. I would have "no call.""
Not necessarily. There is no required intent when interfering with the fielder attempting to throw the ball. Many get it confused, but that is not the same as interfering with a thrown ball.

Sliding for a base in an effort to reach the base or get out of the way of the defender is fine. However, the pop-up is a good question, though unanswerable without seeing the specific play.
Quote:

1) Does this still apply in NFHS and ASA?
I would assume
Quote:

2) What about an upright runner, forced out 2 - 4 steps from the base?
Again, would have to see the play
Quote:

3) Are the answers to 1 and 2 also true for NCAA?
Don't know why they wouldn't be especially since their rules seem to be a bit more liberal than others. Of course, that is subject to change after the next influential coach has this happen to him/her and the umpire doesn't see it the same way.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 16, 2006, 03:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
I know this is old business, but have patience. This quote is from an old post about a runner sliding into 2nd and taking out teh SS. I have a couple questions about it.
"... under ASA rules (and NFHS). There, interference by a retired runner must be intentional. Some would say that a pop-up slide was intentional, but as you described it, I don't see that as an intentional act to interfer or to break up a DP. I would have "no call.""

1) Does this still apply in NFHS and ASA?
2) What about an upright runner, forced out 2 - 4 steps from the base?
3) Are the answers to 1 and 2 also true for NCAA?
OK,
I was trying to get a general answer for NCAA and apply the rule myself. Here are the specifics. Runners on 1st and 3rd, batted ball to SS, almost behind 2nd base. F6 fields and runs to 2nd, barely beating R2 who is upright going straight to the base. F6 then tries to throw to 1st and her hand or arm strikes R2 in the face, ball comes loose and both go down. No intent to contact by either player.
To me the question comes down to if and when the retired runner has to "evaporate" or do anything to avoid the fielder. The NCAA book in the runner interference section including A.R 9.13.e; which reads like the same case implies that any prevention of the follow-up play is interference; whether the runner had time to avoid or not.
Is that the actual interpretation?
Is it also the NFHS interpretation?
Please don't answer with HTBT. If not sure of what happened, ask.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 16, 2006, 09:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 964
Mike: Not necessarily. There is no required intent when interfering with the fielder attempting to throw the ball

ASA 8-7 P “A (retired) runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.” Same as NFHS 8-6.18

Cecil: Is it also the NFHS interpretation?


While both rulebooks say that interference must be intentional, both casebooks turn around and indicate that simply interfering with the opportunity to make a play on another runner is called Interference – without judging intent. ASA 8.8.53 and NFHS 8.6.18 Sit A discuss a runner crossing the plate and then contacting the catcher who is trying to throw out another runner. ASA automatically says Dead Ball, call Interference. NFHS says to call interference if the umpire judged the interference prevented the other runner from being put out. No judgment of intent.

ASA 8.8.52 describes a force at 2B and the (retired) runner interferes with F6’s throw to 1B. What is F6’s throw? Is it the ball? Or F6 throwing? If it is the ball, then getting drilled between the eyes would interfere with the throw, wouldn’t it? Either way, it is automatic dead ball, no intent judged.


NFHS 8.6.18 Sit B has a throw to 1B beating the B-R, but then F3 has to step two steps into fair territory to make a throw to home on a runner trying to score from 3B. If the umpire judged that (retired) B-R hindered F3’s play on runner at home, then call interference.


Reading these case plays would seem to contradict the interpretations we have voiced on this forum repeatedly that a retired runner should not be forced to suddenly disappear. If the runner did not have adequate time to avoid the fielder making a play on another runner, we were not going to call interference if the play could not be executed.


Now I am not sure!

WMB

Last edited by WestMichBlue; Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 09:33pm.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 17, 2006, 07:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestMichBlue
... snip ... Reading these case plays would seem to contradict the interpretations we have voiced on this forum repeatedly that a retired runner should not be forced to suddenly disappear. If the runner did not have adequate time to avoid the fielder making a play on another runner, we were not going to call interference if the play could not be executed.


Now I am not sure!

WMB
That's about where I am, causing this topic. I need an NCAA expert answer as well, including the "play available" or not which seems to be different between ASA and NFHS ("ASA automatically says Dead Ball, call Interference. NFHS says to call interference if the umpire judged the interference prevented the other runner from being put out.").

Is the "discrepancy" between rules and cases merely because the cases assume the specifics of the rule have been met and are only providing examples of the physics?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 17, 2006, 08:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestMichBlue
Mike: Not necessarily. There is no required intent when interfering with the fielder attempting to throw the ball

ASA 8-7 P “A (retired) runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.” Same as NFHS 8-6.18
You are correct. I overlooked the "retired" portion of the question
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 17, 2006, 09:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,264
Tips on Interference

I found this in the NCAA Umpires Manual:

"Tips on Interference
• To have interference, there must be a possible play.
• The three foot lane keeps the game even. Do not confuse an overthrow with a bad throw.
• If a runner is coming toward a defensive player a throw is not required to have an interference
call.
• If a runner is going away from a defensive player there must be a throw before interference
can be called
"

and

"A wreck usually requires no call or signal. If a wreck looks like interference or looks like
obstruction but in your judgment it was neither, then signal Safe and continue with your duties on the play.
By signaling Safe, you tell the teams that you have seen the action, you have made a judgment on the action, and you have determined that no violation occurred. Be prepared, at the end of playing action, to explain your judgment.
"
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.

Last edited by CecilOne; Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:15am.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 20, 2006, 10:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
That's about where I am, causing this topic. I need an NCAA expert answer as well, including the "play available" or not which seems to be different between ASA and NFHS ("ASA automatically says Dead Ball, call Interference. NFHS says to call interference if the umpire judged the interference prevented the other runner from being put out.").

Is the "discrepancy" between rules and cases merely because the cases assume the specifics of the rule have been met and are only providing examples of the physics?
I guess five days of no response means there is no answer.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 20, 2006, 11:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,666
Cecil - a suggestion:

Go to www.cactusumpires.com and post the question on the message board there. Emily regularly reads and responds to the questions posted.

I would catagorize Emily as an NCAA (and FED and ASA) rules expert!
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 20, 2006, 12:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
OK,
To me the question comes down to if and when the retired runner has to "evaporate" or do anything to avoid the fielder. The NCAA book in the runner interference section including A.R 9.13.e; which reads like the same case implies that any prevention of the follow-up play is interference; whether the runner had time to avoid or not.
Notice that just before the section that you refer to above, the NCAA rulebook also includes the following note:

If both players actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is inadvertant contact and neither interference nor obstruction.

To me, this places your question firmly in the realm of "judgement." Do you feel that the runner had time to "evaporate," as you put it? If so, then you would rule INT. If the runner, again in your judgement, did nothing intentional to interfere and had no time to alter her course, then your ruling would be inadvertant contact, which of course, has no penalty.

Does this help at all?
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 21, 2006, 02:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 382
A pop up slide to me is obvious interference .
Why else would they pop up but to cause int .
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 21, 2006, 09:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by debeau
A pop up slide to me is obvious interference .
Why else would they pop up but to cause int .
I would suspect they pop up to be in position to advance more quickly on a misplay by the defense. Is the offense expected to assume the defense will always make the play? Or to proceed to their best advantage if a misplay is actually made?

Not being smart, Debeau; I think it is a fair question if you assume it is interference.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 22, 2006, 12:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 382
Clarification .
We are talking a close play here .
A pop up on a vey close play will most certainly be interference .
Obviously I havnt made my mind up until the play happens and it would have to be a decision made at that moment but I would be looking for it .
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 22, 2006, 09:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,505
Then again, considering the skill of most players today, many, if not most, do not know how to properly slide and it may be a matter of the runner using the base as a brake.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.

Last edited by IRISHMAFIA; Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 08:19am.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 22, 2006, 03:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 382
Cool

Now thats interesting Mike and I hadnt even thought of it .
The out occurs with a pop up slide , we have to decide if it is intentional .
As you said Mike players use it as a brake and if the INT is accidental because of this , no outs . An out only occurs if the INT is intentional .
More to ponder upon and different aspects of the game to look at depending on the level of play .
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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
Runner hit by batted ball, scoring runner, batter wfwbb Baseball 12 Sat Jul 17, 2004 03:12pm
Retired runner called out??? blueump Baseball 6 Wed Apr 28, 2004 04:48pm
interference by retired runner shipwreck Softball 15 Thu Sep 18, 2003 07:00am
Bratter-Runner VS Runner whiskers_ump Softball 14 Sun Apr 28, 2002 07:04pm
runner passing another runner shipwreck Softball 2 Sun Apr 07, 2002 11:12am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1