Interference/Lunch Bet
 

Need help settling this, NFHS.

R1 on 2nd.

Ball hit to F4, play at 1st BR out with plenty of time to not run into F3. F3 has blocked most of the base and BR plows into her hard. Interference call is made.

R1 has rounded 3rd at the time of the interference call.

Question is R1 alway called out, or just returned to third and possibly called out based on the umpires judgment on whether the defense had a play on her.

I haven't looked this up as my books are at home. But I have the lead runner out on interference since the interference occurred after the BR was already out.

The guy, I believe that is buying lunch says that the 2nd out is a judgment call.

I can't speak for NFHS, but in ASA, if there's no possible play on R1, there's no INT call. If, as a result of F3 being down on the ground, R1 advances to HP, then you would have INT.

I can't imagine NFHS would be that different from ASA, but seeing as how I don't call NFHS, I'll let the NFHS guys confirm it.

Rules & Cases Directory
Softball Rules Book 2007
Rule 8: Batter-Runner and Runner
Section 6: The Runner Is Out
Article 18


Art. 18... After being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.
PENTALTY: (Arts. 16, 17, 18) The ball is dead and the runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Each other runner must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference.


I think the keys are 'INTENTIONALLY' and 'OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PLAY'. Probably a HTBT.

But, to answer your question, no R1 is not always called out. Some thinking, common sense, and umpire judgement are going to have to come into play.

Speaking NFHS, you must ask yourself if the "interference" prevented a play on another runner, as you have already been directed my Mark above. If there is no play, then you have nothing else, except maybe a DQ'ed player if you feel the contact was flagrant and unsportsmanlike.

If there was the possibility of a play, in your judgement, on another player, then the player closest to home would be called out.

Who's buying lunch now? :)

Yup. They are pretty much the same.

I think that I am getting the free lunch.

This scenario happened in one of my daughters HS games last May.

My daughter was the girl rounding third at the time of the interference. The interference did prevent the play on my daughter at home, so she should have been out as well.

The umpire never killed the play on the interference call, and my daughter scored. They didn't put her on third or call her out! My view was she was out automatically as the play was prevented. To top it off the opposing coach never complained.

My bet over lunch was, is she out automatically as the play was prevented or can the umpire judge whether she would have been out if the play was made. This isn't clear in the OP.

The answer to your specific question is she is out automatically if the umpire judges there was a chance to make a play on the (any other) runner. As the rule was quoted it is interference on the chance to make a play on another runner, NOT the chance to get an out on the other runner. So if there is judgement that the fielder had a chance to throw home to make a play on R1 then she is out whether it was likely there would have been an actual out on R1 or not.

8.6.18 in NFHS Case book situations A & B do not deal with "intentional" interference by base runner.

Sit. A...R1 on 3rd. B2 hits to SS who throws home. Catcher can't make play and R1 scores. Catcher then tries to throw to 2nd to get B2 out. R1 runs into Catcher "after R1 has crossed plate causing her to drop the ball". Ruling runs scores..if umpire judgement says the interference prevented B2 from being put out the umpire will call her out.

Sit. B also states it is umpires judgement on a non-intentional interference.

NFHS (and ASA for that matter) is contradicting itself. In my not so honorable opinion, NFHS should take the guess work out and make the runner closest to home out if retired runner or runner who already scored interferes PERIOD.

ASA took out the intentional part of the rule as should NFHS.

So you are saying that a runner should just go "poof" and disappear once she touches the plate? BTW, B2 was the runner closest to home.

Not sure which part I misspoke on but that wasn't what I meant...I meant if a runner alreay put out or runner already scored interferes, either intentionally or unintentionally, the runner closest to home should be called out. When they ask umpires to judge whether or not a play could be made is too much guesswork.

Hope that clears up what I meant to say.

First of all, that is what we are paid to do, make calls based on our judgement. It really isn't difficult at all, in most cases, to decide whether or not a play could have been made. There are those rules in every rule code of which I am aware that ask us to make this type of decision.

Never insinuited we don't make alot of judgement calls in a game. But this is the only one I can think of where we have to judge a player's ability.