Another "Interference or Not"
 

Play: No outs. Batter takes called 3rd strike. Catcher doesn't catch the pitch and it goes to the backstop. Batter heads for 1st base and is running legally in
the 3-foot running lane. Catcher retrieves the ball from the first base side
of the backstop and throws to 1st, striking the on-deck batter in the back (or side), as she was watching the batter-runner and not the catcher. The on-deck batter was (a) in her own on-deck circle or (b) walking towards home plate to pick up the batter-runner's bat, when she got plucked. There was no intent to interfere but she also did not make an attempt to avoid the throw, seeing that she was not watching the catcher.

Questions: Is this interference on the on-deck batter? Is this one where 'intent' is required? If not interference, do we kill the ball to prevent further advancement of the BR?

Talking ISF rules, see Rule 7, Sec. 1-f

In which it states that the on-deck batter may not interfere with the defense trying to retire a runner. No intent is mentioned. She's got to watch out, and let the defense do (or screw up) their job.

Effect: Dead ball, and the runner closest to home plate is out. Interesting that it's not the BR.

This play happened in a NFHS varsity game yesterday.

I understand who would be out. Anytime a retired runner (or one who has already scored) or a non-runner (on-deck batter, coach, bat boy) interferes with a defensive play, the runner closest to Home is the one declared out. In my play, there was only the BR, thus she is the one called out.

a) "in the on deck circle" Wow that was a lousy throw by the catcher, the on-deck circle is a pretty good distance from the home-plate area. I got nothing, the cathcer doesn't catch the pitch, I'm not going to punish the offense unless something is done intentionally to interfere with the throw.

b) depending on how close the on-deck batter was to HP, I would do the same thing as above. If she walked in bewtween the catcher and the throw, perhaps, but, I will still not punish the offense for a mistake the defense made.

Unfortunately for you, there is no rules basis in any level of softball to support your position. It doesn't matter at all that the catcher didn't catch the pitch, nor that you judge it a good distance. Your only options under the rules are 1) call interference in both (a) and (b), since that is what the rule states, or 2) justify not calling interference under the rules (meaning, there was no play to interfere with).

ASA 7-1-D; NCAA 9-12 Effect.

Wow! You are now judging whether or not to hand out punishment? That is not your job.

Your responsibility is to enforce the rules as written to prevent one side from gaining an advantage over the other. Interference (and obstruction) rules do not have punishments. They simply require that you correct the game back to where it should have been had there not been interference or obstruction.

In the OP the on-deck batter hindered a defender from making a play on the runner. Call the interference - and right the game.

WMB

Sarge,

I respectively disagree with you on this one.

ASA:
Interference: “The act of an offensive player…that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play.”

Rule 7;1;D: “The on-deck batter may not interfere with a defensive player’s opportunity to make an out.”

As an umpire, IMO, applying the rules in a fair and consistent manner is never penalizing either team. In this case the on-deck batter has an obligation to get out of the way.

I think I can see where Sarge is coming from and where the disconnect is. In sitch one, he assumes that the reason this hit ODB was that it was a horrid throw. If it was really a horrid throw, then it was not interference, as the ball hitting ODB did not interfere with the opportunity to get an out.

However, I think the intent of the OP was that the ball had gotten away from catcher ... over near the ODB - and that the ball was actually thrown just fine - in which case we have INT, intent or not.

In the second, he seems to be making a similar assumption (my apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth).

I think the key here is - ODB has an obligation to not get in the way. If she was contacted by a thrown ball that WAS thrown well enough to be an attempt to get an out (with the benefit of the doubt given to the defense), then it's interference, regardless of intent. But if this throw was not good enough to have a chance for an out, then it's nothing (we can't reward defense for throwing the ball at ODB, if such a throw was not at least sort of toward first base).

hmm
 

How exactly do you ring up a call third strike on a passed ball? Maybe in a ten and under game, but in a H.S. varsity game?

Blu

Usually with my right hand.

Does the rule book say the catcher MUST catch the ball?

Does the umpire's manual say the catcher MUST catch the ball?

I know it has been taught by many for years that if the catcher can't catch it, you can't call it a strike. Those are usually the same folks who swear the runner has to beat the ball, that ties do not go to the runner.

Wouldn't the Batter Runner be out anyways?
 

I agree that if a retired runner or one who has scored interferes then we get the runner closest to home out. However, this is not the case here. There are two points I'd like to make.

1.) The batter was not put out. The batter became a batter runner on the drop third strike and had to be put out by a tag or a throw to first base. Therefore we don't have a retired runner.

2.) The batter-runner was not the one that caused the interference. It was the on-deck batter.

So if R1 was on 2nd when this occured, I would call dead ball, batter runner out due to interference by the on-deck batter and return the R1 to 2nd.

Anyone disagree? If so, can you provide a rule reference please?

Thanks!

Already referenced. ASA 7-1.D EFFECT 1. The runner closest to home is out when interference is caused by the on-deck batter.

The general rules of thumb still apply. The person who creates interference is out, whenever that is possible. If that person can't be out (already out, is a coach, other offensive team member, or on-deck batter), then the runner closest to home is out.

Got it and thanks! Can't be any clearer than that!

The OP was an NFHS game. NFHS does not have the equivalent all in one place rule like ASA 7-1 for the ODB, and 7-1-D for interference by the ODB.

In NFHS, the ball is dead (5-1-1g) - although even here, one might argue that the ODB is not "nonparticipating." The dead ball table says that the penalty for interference by "others connected with the offensive team" is 3-5-5 Penalty, but 3-5-5 has no Penalty clause.

What is the rule reference for NFHS?

Speaking ASA for a moment, would your seeing interference by the ODB require you to judge that the throw, had it not hit the ODB, had a chance of getting to F3 for the out? IOW, to the extent possible, would you try to see if the ODB was in a more-or-less direct line between the person throwing the ball (F2) and the person receiving it (F3)?

Gotta say, though, what was the ODB thinking, not paying attention to the play while it was going on on her side of the field?

Yes. There has to be a play for there to be interference. If it was a wild throw that happened to hit the ODB, that is not interference.

Piggyback on Dakota, for clarity, only. You cannot assume the throw would be late, unless the runner has already reached the base, or no fielder is in position to take the throw and make the tag. Runners have been known to stop short and be tagged out with late throws. But you can, and should, judge if the throw was reasonably on line to make the play.