Second guessing
 

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.

I think you got it right!
 

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. :D

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.

What about Rule 8.5.4?
 

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?

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?

All you guys are missing the key component to correctly calling this play...


D-mn straight it was an out. :D I might even be searching for some excuse to rule remained on her feet with the obvious intent of breaking up a double play! ;)

No
 

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.

Not LL, but Speaking ASA

If the catcher is behind the plate, how can contact be made without the runner not having already scored? The OP notes that F2 was receiving the ball. If that ball spent any time in F2's glove, I may have been inclined to rule R1 out on the force if the contact is the cause of the ball coming out of the glove.

Cannot be OBS. Could it be INT? Yes, but the umpire would need to judge that the contact prevented F2 from getting an out elsewhere. It seems that since F1 didn't field the ball cleanly and the scenario, as presented, seemed to unfold in a slow fashion, another play probably wasn't available. HTBT.

Man, I'll call with you ANYTIME!!!

In the case described here I would have an out, call it a mercy out if you want. Had the score been zero-zero, I would have to had been there.

Dakota: LOL I was wondering who was going to notice that important part of the situation. I really wasn’t trying to make up a reason for an out, but I was sure glad I had one. Now I am pretty sure it was the wrong call. (Or maybe the right call for the wrong reason! Hehe)

Mike: The ball was reaching the glove as contact was made, ball deflected off F2s glove, hit her in the chest, and fell to the ground. F2 stepped back as R1 hit her arm/glove, otherwise might have been bigger crash. Without the contact, quite possibly the ball is caught in time for the force, would have been very close play. Still it is not R1s problem that F2 is set up in this silly position instead of out in front of the plate in fair territory.

In the end, calling INT here penalized the offense for doing nothing wrong and rewarded the defense for poor play. R1 was just running home, and was not avoiding a tag, so in hindsight I have to say R1 had every right to the plate. She made no move to intentionally knock the ball from F2s glove. F2 would have had an easy out if she had set up in front of the plate (not blocking it) to take the throw for the force out.

Bad call, blue! :D

How? If the catcher started BEHIND the plate, how does the runner get to the point of contacting her without scoring first? Even more so if F2 was moving backward and was contacted by R1 before the ball reached her.

Something is wrong.

Perhaps, since runners are not required to run bases in any particular order in ASA (tongue firmly in cheek folks), this runner is coming from first base toward home, and F2 is "behind the plate" in the front of the LHB Batter's box...

;)

:D :D :D :D :D

Mike I am probably just not describing it accurately enough. F2 was set up on the back of the plate with her arm stretched out in front of her (over the plate) to receive the ball in such a way that R1s body made contact with her arm as the ball was reaching her glove.

What is wrong here is that I applied the theory of remaining upright and not avoiding contact to a situation where the feilder was not holding the ball. :(