Interference?

[DTQ_Blue]

R2 and R3. Batter hits bouncing ball toward F6. R2 runs right in front of her as ball approaches, but doesn't physically touch F6. As R2 clears F6, ball is in mid bounce about chest high and slightly to the left of F6. F6 had arms below waist and quickly tries to raise arms to field the ball, but the ball is past her before she can react. The way I saw it is that F6 lost visual contact with the ball when R2 was in front of her, and then when R2 cleared her, and she re-established visual, it was too late for her to react to the ball and field it.

I did call interference.

Next question,

How do you concisely explain this call to R2 when she asks, what did I do wrong?

[NCASAUmp]

Well, first off, that's the coach's job to ask. However, I'd say, "well, you blocked her view of the ball, and because of that, she missed it. That's interference."

Simple language that even 10U should understand.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DTQ_Blue

R2 and R3. Batter hits bouncing ball toward F6. R2 runs right in front of her as ball approaches, but doesn't physically touch F6. As R2 clears F6, ball is in mid bounce about chest high and slightly to the left of F6. F6 had arms below waist and quickly tries to raise arms to field the ball, but the ball is past her before she can react. The way I saw it is that F6 lost visual contact with the ball when R2 was in front of her, and then when R2 cleared her, and she re-established visual, it was too late for her to react to the ball and field it.

I did call interference.

Next question,

How do you concisely explain this call to R2 when she asks, what did I do wrong?

You ruled a runner out for doing exactly what she is supposed to do. If you have given us all the information available, I don't believe there was interference on the play.

[MichaelVA2000]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You ruled a runner out for doing exactly what she is supposed to do. If you have given us all the information available, I don't believe there was interference on the play.

I agree, nothing in the OP indicates to me that there was interference.

[DTQ_Blue]

Irish,

Well I would not go so far as to say that R2 was doing what she was supposed to do because the rules only explicitly say what she can't do. The judgment I have to make is whether she is doing one of those things she's not supposed to do.

My reasoning for the call ...

F6 can't field what she can't see, and she couldn't see the ball because R2 was in front of her. I understand that R2 wasn't intentionally trying to obstruct F6 vision, but she nonetheless did. F6 didn't have a chance to react to the ball in time after R2 cleared her. Why is that not interference?

BTW, the reason I am posting this is because I know that one of these days I will have to deal with this issue in a game that really matters (the game I'm describing here did not). I'm still relatively new to calling softball, and most umpires I've worked with probably would not have made this call, but one of the times I saw it made was with a partner working BU in a HS game who is probably one of the most experienced umpires in our association, i.e., HS and D1 college ball.

I can use some of the board's wisdom on this because I this seems to happen much more when I work softball vs when I work hardball.

[U of M Sam]

Well - a softball is actually a hardball
Do you mean the "other sport"?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DTQ_Blue

Irish,

Well I would not go so far as to say that R2 was doing what she was supposed to do because the rules only explicitly say what she can't do.

The judgment I have to make is whether she is doing one of those things she's not supposed to do.

Welcome to softball

Speaking ASA and just about every other rules set of which I'm aware

The runner has every right to attempt to advance to the next base. No where in the rule book does it state that the runner may not pass in front of a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

My reasoning for the call ...

F6 can't field what she can't see, and she couldn't see the ball because R2 was in front of her. I understand that R2 wasn't intentionally trying to obstruct F6 vision, but she nonetheless did. F6 didn't have a chance to react to the ball in time after R2 cleared her. Why is that not interference?

Because the runner did not commit an "act" of interference. The fielder could have stepped up, she didn't. DMF. You are reading the rule book and taking the information too literally. If the runner did anything that was not natural to her effort to advance to the next base (hesitate and then step in front of the fielder, stop in front of the fielder, slow down for the purpose of timing their pass in front of the fielder with the ball approaching), then you would have INT as the runner committed an act of interference.

BTW, the reason I am posting this is because I know that one of these days I will have to deal with this issue in a game that really matters (the game I'm describing here did not). I'm still relatively new to calling softball, and most umpires I've worked with probably would not have made this call, but one of the times I saw it made was with a partner working BU in a HS game who is probably one of the most experienced umpires in our association, i.e., HS and D1 college ball.

I've got a little experience with the rule book, especially the interference rule after my last year's battle in Colorado Springs.

You should work every game as if it really matters as it may to some on the field. If you make this call in a game that really matters and you explain your reasoning to the coach as you did hear, you may very well lose a protest. Simply running in front of or behind a player attempting to field is nothing more than performing the duties of an active runner.

I strongly suggest that you attend as many softball clinics as possible. Did you ever think that the reason most umpires in your association wouldn't make this call because it is wrong? Experience and longevity actually carry very little weight in the rules department.

[DTQ_Blue]

Irish,

Now I never said the umpires who wouldn't make that call are the experienced ones. I've worked quite a few 2 man crew HS softball games with umpires who don't have a lot of experience, and would likely not make that call based upon my impressions of how they might call a game, i.e., gained thru conversation.

I've also had the good fortune to work a few games with some very experienced umpires. In one of those games, such a BU called INT on a R2 who ran in front of F6 on a slowly hit grounder. As I recall F6 did miss the ball but it seemed to me that though F6 may have been visually blocked from the ball momentarily, she had time to re-find the ball after R2 passed her. When my BU partner called her out, I took notice of that call and have always wondered how many other good experienced umpires would make the same call.

Irish, I see your point, but I think in the end I come down with R2 can't take F6's eyes away a split second before the bouncing ball reaches F6, even if she's simply trying to get to third base. To me, that is "hindering" because F6 has no chance to field that ball unless her glove just happens to be exactly where the ball is.

[MGKBLUE]

I have made interference calls as indicated in the OP.

As stated in the ASA Rules Supplement 33: "Interefernce is an act of an offensive player or team member that impedes, hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Interference mat be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual distraction, or any type of distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution of a play. Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered."

The rule of thumb I use is:

a. If the offensive player allows the batted ball to pass in front of their feet,
I do not normally have interference as the fielder has clear sifgt of the ball.

b. If the offensive player jumps over the ball or the ball passes behind the runner, I take a very close look at the reaction of the fielder and then decide whether interference should or should not be called.

[NCASAUmp]

I say this is a very HTBT play, but I think that it is possible that the ruling in the OP is correct. If a runner blocks the fielder's view of the ball, that, to me is INT as it impedes the fielder to field the ball and execute a play.

Now, we see these kinds of plays happen a lot, and a lot of it will depend on the judgment of the umpire. There's no way we can remove judgment from all INT calls, and the OP is no exception.

However, as I've said in past posts, for me to call INT on a play, I'd have to have something concrete that I can see and use as my justification. I'm not sure it's quite there in the OP, but I can see where MGKBLUE might be coming from.

[DTQ_Blue]

NCASA Ump,

I'm not sure we view it differently. What I saw that convinced me that the call was justified was that F6 could not react to the ball, i.e., raise her arms from below waist to chest high, before it had nearly passed her. This was not a bad hop ball, but F6 looked just like a fielder does when trying to react to a bad hop ball that eats her up. F6 just didn't have enough time to react whereas without R2 in the mix, it's a routinely approached bouncing ball. To me, that was concrete.

I very much like your breakdown of needing to see something concrete upon which to base the call. It simply can't be that F6 missed the ball because that assumes that F6 never makes errors, and this particular F6 showed as the game went on, that frankly she was a very poor fielder.

[tmielke]

I am going to jump in on this, I have to go with Irish here.

Simply running in a direct line, as fast as she can, in front of the fielder is not hindering the fielder's opportunity to field the ball. R2 has a right to the field that that F6 is not occupying.

I would have interference if: 1. R3 ran into F6 before she fielded the ball. 2. F6 had to adjust how she was fielding the ball because R2 ran so close to her, she had to adjust to avoid R2. 3. R2, while running in front of F6 intentionally changed her direction or speed to hinder F6's ability to field the ball.

I don't have interference the way the OP is written.

Tom

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DTQ_Blue

Irish, I see your point, but I think in the end I come down with R2 can't take F6's eyes away a split second before the bouncing ball reaches F6, even if she's simply trying to get to third base. To me, that is "hindering" because F6 has no chance to field that ball unless her glove just happens to be exactly where the ball is.

Okay, do it your way, but this isn't just my "point". It is ASA's point. I wouldn't doubt if it is shared by NCAA, but I am not qualified to make that leap.

BTW, you keep referencing experienced umpires. Experience does not equal good or right. I'm familiar with plenty of umpires with enormous amounts of experience and many barely leave the plate, wear a proper uniform, attend clinic and schools, etc.

I'll take a good rookie who has attended all available clinics and schools over an "experienced" umpire anytime.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DTQ_Blue

NCASA Ump,

I'm not sure we view it differently. What I saw that convinced me that the call was justified was that F6 could not react to the ball,

Then you are looking for the wrong thing. If the runner was simply running the bases, ASA doesn't want you to call interference on this play. If there was some sort of hiccup in the runner's actions that caused the fielder to be unable to play the ball, you may have interference.

Your reference that your inexperienced umpire called this when you think experienced ones probably wouldn't have is odd, in that you're giving kudos to the newby for having the cohones to make the WRONG call! There's a reason the "experienced officials in your area" would not make this call ... it's because it's the wrong call.

[Skahtboi]

DTQ:

You have been given some good advice by some truly experienced umpires regarding a no-call in the situation you provided us in your original post. I strongly suggest that you heed this advice and learn from it. A runner, simply running the bases and trying legally to acquire the next base, is not interfering if her path takes her in front of or behind the fielder in the act of fielding the ball. She must do SOMETHING, in this case, to cause interference. You have been given many examples of this. Mike, Tom and Mike have all given you proper counsel.