NF Rule 8-2-5: Interference or not?
 

National Federation rules only:

Question: NF Rule 8-2-5 outlines criteria for calling the batter-baserunner out for interference. My question is does this include a person who has receive a base on balls? In other words, Can a batter who has been awarded first base because umpire called ball 4 commit interference on her way to first base?

Our local association interpreter received a ruling from our state association who said that since 1st base is an awarded base there can be no interference. I disagree totally solely because even though an awarded base, in this situation (unlike other baserunning awards) the ball remains alive. Awarded bases must be run legally (NF 8-3-11).

NF Rule 8-2-5 also says "in the judgement of the umpire". Consider the situations below. In your judgement do you agree that base is awarded therefore we never can have interference OR are is there a situation you will call interference.

Situation 1: No one on base. B1 recieves a base on balls. She runs to first base in fair territory. Catcher throws the ball to first baseman but it hits B1 (a.) before she gets to 3 foot running lane or (b) near first base while she is outside the 3 foot lane. Did B1 commit interference?

Situation 2: Same as 1 but there is a runner/runners on base. Again apply (a) and (b).

Yes. NFHS has a long-standing interpretation that the running lane rule remains in effect on a base on balls and no obvious "play" is necessary. Obviously, other interference rules also remain in effect, since the ball is live.

I don't have interference in (a) unless the runner did something obvious to interfere with the throw. Merely running in fair territory doesn't do it. It is not a running lane violation since she has not yet reached the running lane.

(b) Is there a double base? How "near" is "near"

Runners on base makes no difference either way.

"Near" was a bad decision on my part. I don't want any other rule to possibly come into play.

So, in (b) let's say she is still 15 feet from the bag.

Then I have a running lane violation, dead ball, BR out, regardless of whether there were runners on base (speaking NFHS).

However, since your state association has made an official ruling, you are obligated to follow their ruling.

I'm not aware of / recall any "softening" of this interpretation from the NFHS (but I don't have my 2007 book yet).

Daryl,
The "traditional" view is that there can be no interference on a running lane violation on a walk - because, as you said, it is an awarded base.

Several years ago, I think it was 2000, Fed pronounced that ALL bases must be run legally. This meant that a running lane violation was posible, AND was to be called, if it occurred on a walk.

2000 was a year that I attended a national school in Philadelphia. This was a big topic of conversation in the hospitality room. And there were some heavyweights in this room. Each was disappointed in Fed's position and were pleased that neither ASA nor NCAA agreed with Fed's position.

Addition - I'm going to add a plug for ASA's national school to this - since I said that there were some real heavyweights in the hospitality room. The classroom work is good, but the real benefit that I found was in this hospitality room. We had 3 national staff members, 3 state uic's (1 future state uic who is a prolific writer on this board was also at the school), a number of people who had worked national championships, international championships, lots of NCAA championship play, and lots of high school state championship play. Where else is your typical umpire going to have access to this depth of skill & knowledge in a relaxed & casual environment. If there is a way for you to go to one of these national schools, go.

Since that time, it has also become the NCAA position.

I am sure that if your state people check with the Fed, they will find that a running lane violation is possible on an awarded base.

For the plays you listed - the answers are the same regardless of whether there are rother runners.
A - Before the running lane, that's a live ball - everybody should be moving.
B - Approx 15 feet from 1B, that's a running lane violation - Dead Ball, B/R is out, every other runner to return to the base they had at the time of the throw.

Let me screw this up.

Remember, just hitting the BR with the ball is NOT a running lane violation. I believe, and will be corrected if I'm wrong, that the INT is on a play at 1st base which requires a defensive player to be in position to take the throw.

This is where the argument over the NFHS interp was divided, not necessarily on the live ball "award" issue. The question many raised was, if unintentional (there's that word again), how can their be INT if there is no play at 1B?

There is the assumption that the BR could round the base, but the umpire is being asked to rule on supposition. Hell of a request to make of the umpire, isn't it?

Remember that NFHS rules are primarily for girls FP (rather than the big umbrella that ASA covers). Girls are going to hit 1B running and maybe make something happen.

In the eyes of the NFHS, a catcher throwing to 1B to prevent a B-R from getting past 1B is "making a play." Definition of making a play includes "any action by a fielder who is attempting to catch or gain control of a thrown ball." (Note: ASA does NOT include this definition of making a play; thus ASA does not support interference on a walked B-R. That doesn't make ASA superior; just different!)

So the fielder is making a legitimate play to hold the runner at 1B, especially when there is a runner on 3B waiting to come home if the B-R gets in a run-down. If you are making a play, you can have interference.

We can "back into" this interpretation from a different situation. Bases loaded, tie score, bottom of 7th, batter is walked. Catcher throws to 1B, hits B-R out of 3' lane. From a member of the NFHS committee: "You cannot be making a play when the game is over and the runners simply need to tag the next base. Thus interference would be disallowed."

WMB

Remember that it only applies to FP. What does the gender of the player have to do with it?

BTW, IMO, no matter what the situation may be, the smartest play for any catcher is to throw the ball back to the pitcher.

The 3' lane has been part of all softball since 1932. But I forgot that the ball is dead in SP on a walk. Anyway, adult men (and women) defensive players have too strong and accurate arms for a runner to attempt anything on a walk.

If the ball is in the pitcher's hand, you have nothing to stop the B-R from going right past 1B. If you don't stop her, a walk is automatically worth two bases (as it often is in sub-varsity or 12/14U games). If you make a play from the pitcher's circle you risk the runner at 3B coming home. The throw to 1B from F2 forces the B-R to stay on the base. F3 is in position to tag the B-R if she rounds the base, and is facing 3B (unlike F1) and can make a play if the runner breaks for home.

WMB

Aside from the coaching strategy possibilities, I thought this should be reiterated, because I didn't have time to look for my similar comments.

NFHS official interpretation is that making a throw to 1B on a walk to prevent the BR from advancing beyond 1B is a play. End of story. Running lane rule applies.

I don't particularly LIKE this interpretation (because, among other things, it seems to assume a relatively low level of skill on the part of the players), but it is what it is. The automatic advance to 2B on a walk with a runner on 3B disappears in summer ball at 12U-A level of play.

I have no clue as to why NCAA also adopted this ruling.

You keep insinuating that the NFHS has a strange interpretation. NO! It is logical, based on the NFHS Definition of Play RULE.

NCAA's definition of PLAY is the same as ASA, so I don't know why they would have this interpretation.

WMB

I acknowledge it is NFHS's interpretation, but help me with the definition part. I don't have the 2007 book yet, but the 2006 book does not address this in the definitions rule. Is it somewhere else?

Also, I was not insinuating anything. I was stating directly that I did not like this interpretation, and the reason why being that it is generally the unskilled defenses that seem to need to throw to 1B to stop the uncontested steal.

I have no problem calling the game the way NFHS wants it called.

You may think it is logical, doesn't mean it actually is logical. Then again, I'm not too keen on the definition of a "PLAY" if it is as you quoted.

Tom's correct though, if you are working Fed rules, you call Fed rules regardless of your opinion.

The pitcher with the ball has the shortest, unobstructed throwing lane to any base than any other player on the field. With the ball in the circle, the runner on 3B must return to the base or commit to home upon the BR touching 1B.

Did you ever notice at the Div I and international level the catcher ALWAYS returns the ball quickly to the pitcher unless a runner is going?

Good point, Tom. I took my info from the 2007 book; I should have looked in older books. I can tell you that the NFHS committee has been adamant that they want this interpretation; that a walked batter is subject to interference. It looks like they added new text this year to justify that position. (I don’t know this is true, but if not, it is one heck of a coincidence.)

It is interesting that for years we have talked about “making a play” or attempting to “execute a play,” but until this year no one ever defined a play.
<O:p
In 2007 the NFHS defined a play as an attempt to retire a batter runner or runner. ASA added the same text to their 2007 book. However, the NFHS also added another definition, which states: “any action by a fielder who is attempting to catch or gain control of a batted or thrown ball.”
<O:p
SO – in 2007 NFHS has a definition of play that matches the previously held interpretation of subjecting a walked batter to 3’ lane interference call.
<O:p
See – it is logical!
<O:p
WMB
<O:p
For those calling HS ball, don’t forget that NFHS also added Initial Play this year in the same definition. This codifies the commonly held interpretation of “step and a reach” protection for a fielder that bobbled a batted ball, and made a half hearted attempt to not protect a defender attempting to field some types of balls deflected by other fielders.

Thanks.

It is logical, if by that you mean the book is self-consistent. However, I don't like either ASA's or NFHS's attempts to define a play. I think ASA's is too restrictive. Defensive plays often have objectives other than an attempt to retire a runner. OTOH, there are also plenty of examples of the defense throwing the ball around when there is no play happening. I liked it better when it was undefined - you knew it when you saw it.

Remember, the definition is for the purpose of the applying the rules, not to be an all-inclusive description of every event which occurs on the field. A runner sliding into 2B on a double is considered a "play" by many, but is irrelevant to how the rules which use the term "play" are applied.

Yes, I know. But let's take interference with a thrown ball as an example. Runner has just been retired on a force play at 2B. R1 holds at 3B. F6 is throwing the ball back to F1 in the circle. Retired runner takes an action ;) to "interfere" (Webster definition) with the throw. R1 takes advantage and scores. It was a thrown ball, not attempting to retire a runner. Was this interference (ASA definition)? I'd say yes, but by rule, there was no play, hence no interference?

I agree with WMB on this as I have heard it repeatedly referenced in my correspondence with the Fed heavyweight types.
However, I am glad that ASA has not taken this route

There is a significant difference between "takes an action to "interfere"" and "acts in a manner which interferes"; unless by "to" you did not mean intent to interfere.

Don't wordsmith... pick your phrase... was it interference under the rules or not? The issue is was there a play, not was there intent.

BR Interference on BB
 

So if I understand this correctly, under NFHS rules, all the catcher has to do in this situation is to observe the BR heading to 1B and if she is out of the 3-foot running lane, then just whack her in the back with the ball and get an easy out for interference.

That doesn't seem fair to me. What am I missing here?

If you've got a particularly OOO or unobservant umpire, yeah - that would probably work. Of course... what happens when the runner course corrects and the ball misses the runner ... with the ball rolling into right field. Seems a bad course to coach.

That said, if an umpire felt it was obvious the throw was made intentionally to hit the batter-runner, then said umpire may well rule that the throw was not a quality throw (which is required for interference on this play). And if the ball was not on line to F3, an umpire could/should not rule interference even if intent was not discerned by them.

So I guess what you're missing is that the throw still has to be a quality throw, and there's a good chance to give up an extra base if not executed perfectly

And the answer is...
 

2007 Case Book - page 48 - Situation 8.2.5.B