inteference by batter or not?

[Roger Greene]

Our old discussion entitled "whats the call?" from 9/4 (www.officialforum.com/thread/2875) never really came to a satisfactory conclussion. At least I've been troubled by it.

NHFS does have a case play that is on point. Situation 14 of 2001 NFHS Softball Rules Interpertations (www.nfhs.org/sports/softball_interp.htm)

R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st. B3 out on strike 3 (caught or uncaught) PU declares B3 out immediately, but B3 runs toward 1st within the running lane and is hit by F2's throw to F3. Ruling: Ball is live, what happens is what happens "UNLESS THE UMPIRE JUDGES .... THAT F2 WAS ATTEMPTING TO PICK OFF R2, IN WHICH CASE INTEFERENCE COULD BE CALLED."

I think this justifies my suggestion of the correct call of batter inteference for the orginizations I call for. (I don't think any of them have the case plays described for ASA that indicate the retired batter cannot interfer just by running to first.) I'm still not totaly convinced that the ASA plays quoted spoke to anything other than an attempt to play on the retired batter.

Was a consensus ever reached?

Thanks,
Roger Greene,
Member UT

[IRISHMAFIA]

Wait a minute, Roger. There were three pages of this thread covering 32 replies and probably a 3rd of them were mine.

They all supported an interference call on any throw NOT going to 1st base unless it was an attempt to pick-off a runner returning to that base.

Many, and not incorrectly so, took the stance that since there was no specific rule covering this scenario, there should have been no call. For ASA, this play can draw a wide-range of varying calls and I personally believe that a good umpire can sell either side of it.

[Dakota]

Roger,

I don't call NFHS games, since they are all afternoon games & my job won't allow it, so I will only comment re: ASA.

I agree with Mike's post, but just wanted to add my 2¢.

The problem with the ASA book on this play is the player running to 1B after striking out is never defined (not a batter anymore, not a BR, not a retired runner, etc.) so application of the interference rules gets a bit dicey.

The only thing that is clear wrt ASA is the player is not out for interference for drawing the throw to 1B.

Getting in the way of another play being made is a different matter, and we must determine which interference rules apply. My call would be "no call - live ball - play on" UNLESS...the player did something to intentionally interfere with the thrown ball, or "hindered the catcher".

In other words, I'd treat her like a batter stepping out of the box - intent required if she interfers with a thrown ball (7-6O3); intent immaterial if she gets tangled up with the catcher (7-6O1). Otherwise, play on. If there was no intent to interfere beyond merely running to 1B, then it doesn't matter where the catcher was throwning or why.

From reading these boards, I seem to recall a ruling from NFHS on a BR progressing to 1B after ball 4 and getting hit by a thrown ball while outside of the 3' lane. NFHS ruled this was an out. Did this ruling get recinded? If not, does it have any (indirect) bearing on this play for NFHS?

[Roger Greene]

Mike,Dakota,
I'm not trying to restart any arguements. I was just left confused by the previous thread. I'm trying to understand the ASA position from listening to you guys.

Is your position that either the no call or interference could be supported if the attempt is to retire a runner returning to first or stealing to another base?

If that is correct, how do we distinguish this from batter inteference? "Come on blue, the batter was allowed to run to first after the caught 3rd strike. It wasn't her fault that the catcher's throw hit her as she crossed the plate. She had no intent to intefer."

It just semes to me that the all the plays cited concerned F2 attempting to play on the retired BR, not on a runner currently on base. I understand and agree with the logic of WYSIWYG when F2 playes on the retired BR by mistake, but it seems that the burden to avoid interference would shift to the retired BR when F2 is making a legitimate play on another runner.

Thanks in advance for helping me sort this out.

Roger Greene,
Member UT






[Edited by Roger Greene on Sep 24th, 2001 at 11:21 AM]

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
it seems that the burden to avoid interference would shift to the retired BR when F2 is making a legitimate play on another runner.

Logically, that would seem to make sense. The problem with ASA is defining the legal status of the player running to 1B.

In ASA, interference with a thrown ball by a runner, retired runner, batter-runner, or batter must be intentional. An on-deck batter may not interfere with a thrown ball, intentional or not. This player, however, is none of these.

Blocked ball doesn't seem to apply, since the person contacting the thrown ball is definitely engaged in the game.

I could support applying the rule for a retired runner and / or a batter out of the box, and defend that application by citing rule 10-1.

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Is your position that either the no call or interference could be supported if the attempt is to retire a runner returning to first or stealing to another base?

Yes, but my position is for the interference call, the umpire would have to judge intentional interference. In ASA, no-call would be the "expected" call, I think.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota [/i]
Logically, that would seem to make sense. The problem with ASA is defining the legal status of the player running to 1B.
In ASA, interference with a thrown ball by a runner, retired runner, batter-runner, or batter must be intentional. An on-deck batter may not interfere with a thrown ball, intentional or not. This player, however, is none of these.

No, but his status is basically the same, in the line-up, but not presently active on the field of play.

Blocked ball doesn't seem to apply, since the person contacting the thrown ball is definitely engaged in the game.

Same argument as above. You would have to define "engaged in the game".

Like I said before, I think we could sell it either way.

[Dakota]

Mike,

It's hard to have a real lively debate when we agree, so I'm picking on some picayune issues.

I agree the call could be sold either way, and would probably be protest proof given adequate explanation at the time.

However, the umpire still needs to decide who this player is, so he can apply the "correct" (in his mind, anyway) rule.

I can see batter out of the box (rule 7-6O) as being analogous. I think maybe you brought up this first in the thread below. This is the rule I favor, since it allows the catcher's opportunity to make a play to have some protection without requiring intent.

I can also see retired runner (rule 8-8P) as being analogous, especially since this rule makes mention of the retired batter running to 1B. One could then assume that the retired batter running to 1B is a special case of retired runner.

The material difference between using 7-6O vs 8-8P is that for 7-6O intent is not required if the player gets tangled up with the catcher, whereas 8-8P requires intent even for getting in the way of a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.

Since the former batter is "engaged in the game" at the start of the play, I don't see using the blocked ball or the on-deck batter rules.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Well, we've all talked about what is in the book and pretty much agree it contains nothing specific to this situation.

Therefore, I would rule that the former BR had no standing in the game at the time of the catcher's throw and was in a position which inhibited the defense from making a legal play to get the opponent out. I will rule interference, move the runner back to 1B and rule the runner closest to home out.

Of course, the coach of the offensive team is going to question the ruling, but I'll simply request s/he cite the paragraph which would nullify my ruling. As we have established, it is not there so it cannot be found.

When a protest is filed, I'm simply going to hang my hat on rule 10.1, parts of which state, "The plate umpire shall have the authority to make decisions on any situation not specifically covered in the rules." No where in the ASA rule book is a retired batter addressed when not advancing to 1B with the intent of drawing a throw to that base. I submit that the lack of direction provided by the rulebook would validate my ruling.

[Dakota]

True -- all true.

However, in the interest of finding something to keep talking about...

B2 strikes out; R1 on 1B is attempting to steal. B2 steps out of the box heading back to her dugout & gets in the way of the catcher's play. 7-6O applies, right?

So, how does her run toward 1B change the rule to be applied?

[Roger Greene]

Thanks, Mike.
If I were on the protest committee I'd vote to dismiss the protest.

Roger Greene

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
True -- all true.

However, in the interest of finding something to keep talking about...

B2 strikes out; R1 on 1B is attempting to steal. B2 steps out of the box heading back to her dugout & gets in the way of the catcher's play. 7-6O applies, right?

So, how does her run toward 1B change the rule to be applied?

The only difference that could be brought up in a discussion would be that the retired batter is expected to return to the dugout, while in the previous scenario, the retired batter was doing something which has no merit especially since the umpire was emphatic when ruling the batter out.

Other than that, once again, you have a retired batter which is not addressed in the rule book. You could start with 7.6.0, but you may end up back at 10.1.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Mike Sez.......

I would rule that the former BR had no standing in the game at the time of the catcher's throw and was in a position which inhibited the defense from making a legal play to get the opponent out. I will rule interference, move the runner back to 1B and rule the runner closest to home out.

Pretty good explanation.............I am going to tuck that one away for when it happens........

BTW.........one thing I have learned..........the really weird plays DO happen............grin.

Joel

[SamNVa]

I would like to add that FED rule 8.1.1b says that the batter becomes a runner when charged with a third strike, with a note that if the third strike is caught or 1st base is occupied with less than 2 outs, the "runner" is immediately out.

So in FED, this player does have the status of a retired runner, for what it's worth.

[Dakota]

What is the FED equivalent of ASA 8-8P? In the ASA book, the retired runner must intentionally interfere for interferance to be called. Just being in the way doesn't count.

[SamNVa]

From Note 1 under Rule 8.4.2h which I interpret as applying to sections 8.4.2(d,e,f, & g) as well, a retired runner is basically treated the same as a live runner, i.e. hindering a fielder is interference whether it is intentional or not, interference with a thrown ball, must be intentional.

In accordance with FED's stand on walks and the 3-foot lane, I believe that if the retired BR is running outside the lane and interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first, by getting plunked, etc., then the umpire would be justified in ruling the interference intentional and calling the runner nearest to home out.

If the throw were going to another base like 2nd (as was described in the original thread I believe) then the BR would have to do something more than just being in the way for interference to be called.

Again all of this is for FED, not ASA.

--Sam