Second guessing

[rwest]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

I am having a severe case of second guessing on a play I had tonight.

I was working one man in a Little League Junior Division (ages 13-14) softball game. Bottom of the third, home team is up twenty-something to zero. Bases loaded, nobody out. B4 hits a slow roller to F1. The visiting team parents are going nuts. “Throw it home, throw it home!” I am praying to the Softball Gods that F1 throws it to somebody and gets an out, any out!

F1 fumbles with the ball for a moment, then starts running toward home plate with the ball, then finally decides to toss the ball underhanded to F2. F2 has a position behind home plate with her foot on the back point of home plate and her glove hand outstretched over the plate to receive the ball. Frankly, I doubt if F2 had a clue whether or not she needed to tag the advancing runner or not.

R1 from 3B coming home stays on her feet and is about to touch home as F2 is receiving the ball. R1 makes contact with F2s arm. F2 steps back as her arm is contacted by R1. The ball falls to the ground.

During the second from the time the play happened until I made my call I remember thinking “the runner has to avoid contact” and “defense had an opportunity to make an out” as R1 would have been forced out if F2 makes the catch. I called dead ball and ruled R1 out for interference. BR to 1B, everyone else forced up a base, one out.

Nobody argued.

In hindsight, a runner must avoid contact with a fielder who is fielding a batted ball, or a fielder who is holding the ball waiting to apply a tag. But interference with a thrown ball requires intent on the part of the runner. This fielder was in the act of catching a thrown ball. The runner made no action to show intent to interfere with the catch, she simply ran toward and through home. F2s arm was in her path.

It’s not obstruction, as R1 certainly never altered her path. But I don’t think it was interference either. I think it was incidental contact and F2 better pick up the ball.

It is true that interference has to be intentional with a thrown ball, however, that's not what happened in this case, if I understand the play correctly. R1 did not interfere with the ball, but with the catcher's ability to catch the ball. There is a big difference. R1 interfered with the catcher - OUT! Also keep in mind that the catcher is in the act of fielding a thrown ball. A runner can not interfere with a fielder in this situation. I think you got it right. At least until Mike says you got it wrong, then I agree with Mike.

[mcrowder]

rwest - sorry, that reply is incorrect from beginning to end. A player in the act of catching a ball has no protection, and in fact cannot be in the basepath while doing so or she risks committing obstruction (and the only reason the OP's sitch might not be OBS is that the runner didn't slow, and the contact was apparently so small that it didn't alter or slow her path --- MOST of the time, this exact play IS obstruction on F2).

There is no rule (other than a BR outside the running lane) that would cause interference to be called on a runner who unintentionally contacted a fielder who was fielding a thrown ball.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

rwest - sorry, that reply is incorrect from beginning to end. A player in the act of catching a ball has no protection, and in fact cannot be in the basepath while doing so or she risks committing obstruction (and the only reason the OP's sitch might not be OBS is that the runner didn't slow, and the contact was apparently so small that it didn't alter or slow her path --- MOST of the time, this exact play IS obstruction on F2).

There is no rule (other than a BR outside the running lane) that would cause interference to be called on a runner who unintentionally contacted a fielder who was fielding a thrown ball.

I believe there can be interference in this case based on Rule 8.5.4.B or at least there is no obstruction. The rule is poorly written, but I interpret it to mean that the fielder is protected in the act of "attempting to field a batted or thrown ball". Based on this rule, I don't believe you can call obstruction if a fielder is attempting to catch a thrown ball. Where am I wrong?

[AtlUmp]

If this is anything it is obstruction but given the sitch I would have a hard time with that also. I don't have a rule book handy so I can't comment on 8.5.4.B.
If you had a runner on second stealing third on the pitch F2 throws to F5, ball and runner arrive about the same time R1 slides into the glove of F5 and the ball comes rolling out. Do you call interference?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AtlUmp

If this is anything it is obstruction but given the sitch I would have a hard time with that also. I don't have a rule book handy so I can't comment on 8.5.4.B.
If you had a runner on second stealing third on the pitch F2 throws to F5, ball and runner arrive about the same time R1 slides into the glove of F5 and the ball comes rolling out. Do you call interference?

No, I wouldn't. Sounds like they all arrived at about the same time. What do you call in this scenario? R1 on 2nd. R2 on 1st. B1 hits a lazy fly ball that R1 thinks will be caught, so she stays at 2nd. The ball drops in front of the outfielder. R1 heads for 3rd. The throw is off target forcing F5 to move toward 2nd. The runner collides with F5 and the ball gets by the fielder. Do you have obstruction? Not per rule 8.5.B.4.B.

Rule 8.5 is entitled "Runners are entitled to advance without liability to be put out".

Rule 8.5.B says... "When a fielder not in possession of the ball or not in the act of fielding a batted ball, obstructs the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running bases.....

Rule 8.5.B.4 says..."When a runner, while advancing or returning to a base....
a. Is obstructed by a fielder who neither has the ball or
b. Is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball, or
c. When a fielder who fakes a tag without the ball

Effect: The obstructed runner and all other runner shall always be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpires judgment, had there been no obstruction.

What is confusing is that 8.5.B says nothing about fielding a thrown ball but 8.5.B.4 does. The wording is not consistent. If you take 8.5.B.4.B at face value, then a fielder who is attempting to field a thrown ball can not be called for obstructing the runner.

This is why I have such a difficult time interpreting some of the rules. The rulebook is inconsistent in places. It's hard to judge the intent of the rules committee! I only have the rulebook and the casebook. If there are two rules in conflict or multiple places where the same rule is worded differently, what do you go by? I need to search the casebook to see if there is a case play that clarifies the situation.