Interference or Nothing

[greymule]

I no longer do Fed, but in ASA, I judge INT with an uncaught third strike the same way I would judge INT with a thrown ball. It does not have to be intentional, but it does have to involve some sort of overt action. Just as a runner advancing to 3B is not automatically out for INT if the throw from the outfield hits her in the back, a BR is not out if an uncaught third strike bounces off the catcher and directly into a motionless BR. But a ball lying on the ground and unintentionally kicked by the BR is INT.

That doesn't mean I like the rule. I would like to see a loose uncaught third strike treated like a loose throw, as in OBR.

[Al]

Originally Posted by greymule

I no longer do Fed, but in ASA, I judge INT with an uncaught third strike the same way I would judge INT with a thrown ball. It does not have to be intentional, but it does have to involve some sort of overt action. Just as a runner advancing to 3B is not automatically out for INT if the throw from the outfield hits her in the back, a BR is not out if an uncaught third strike bounces off the catcher and directly into a motionless BR. But a ball lying on the ground and unintentionally kicked by the BR is INT.

That doesn't mean I like the rule. I would like to see a loose uncaught third strike treated like a loose throw, as in OBR.

Hey Greymule,


I understand, according to rule, unintentionally kicking a ball that's lying on the ground would be INT. But, is there any overt action by the BR if a ball blindly rolls into her as she is advancing to first? How could it be known that the ball was going to be deflected at her? I would think that would be similar to a BR being blindly hit in the back by a defenders thrown ball. It seems strange to judge some overt action by the BR when a ball rolls, bounces, etc. into her as she is just starting her advance to 1st. Thanks, ...Al

[Reffin' Sgt]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

The rule states/infers that impeding, hindering, or confusing any fielder is illegal.

No, that's not what the rule says in NFHS; it states:
"ART. 1 . . .Interference is an act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder; …"

It makes a difference where you place the word illegally in the definition. The way I see it, if the BR does not illegally impede, hinder or confuse the catcher, I've got nothing but a live ball.

My 2 cents...

dh

[NKYFP FAN]

Reffin Sgt,
You are correct! There are many examples of plays where a runner could impede or hinder a fielder but it would not be ruled interference.

R1 on 1st base, gets a good jump on the pitch and heads into 2nd base for a steal attempt, she makes a good clean legal slide and knocks the feet out from under F6 who is waiting for the throw. (a) F6 has the ball but drops it on the impact, (b) F6 never catches the ball because of the impact. In either case F6 was hindered from catching the ball however, there is no interference because this was a legal slide.


R1 on 2nd base, B2 hits line drive down 3rd base line and the ball rolls towrds DB area, R1 rounds 3rd and heads for home, F7 picks up ball and throws home, R1 is 3/4 way home when throw from F7 hits her in the back. F2 was impeded from catching the ball but, this is not interference because R1 did nothing illegal.


R1 on 1st base, B2 hits ground ball to F4 who is playing 2-3 steps behind the base path of R1, the ball takes a bad hop and hits off F4's shin and bounces forward into the path of R1, accidental contact is made between R1 and the ball, F4 can not now make a play. R1 impeded F4 from completing the play but, she did nothing illegal and interference should not be called.

The step and a reach rule protects the fielder from contact but it does not protect the ball.

There are many other examples that could be given but, that's enough to prove the point that interference is only called on an illegal act.

NKYFP FAN

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by NKYFP FAN

Reffin Sgt,
You are correct! There are many examples of plays where a runner could impede or hinder a fielder but it would not be ruled interference.

R1 on 1st base, gets a good jump on the pitch and heads into 2nd base for a steal attempt, she makes a good clean legal slide and knocks the feet out from under F6 who is waiting for the throw. (a) F6 has the ball but drops it on the impact, (b) F6 never catches the ball because of the impact. In either case F6 was hindered from catching the ball however, there is no interference because this was a legal slide.

This is the equivalent to talking about bananas. I dont know of any rule set where this is INT.

R1 on 2nd base, B2 hits line drive down 3rd base line and the ball rolls towrds DB area, R1 rounds 3rd and heads for home, F7 picks up ball and throws home, R1 is 3/4 way home when throw from F7 hits her in the back. F2 was impeded from catching the ball but, this is not interference because R1 did nothing illegal.

More bananas

R1 on 1st base, B2 hits ground ball to F4 who is playing 2-3 steps behind the base path of R1, the ball takes a bad hop and hits off F4's shin and bounces forward into the path of R1, accidental contact is made between R1 and the ball, F4 can not now make a play. R1 impeded F4 from completing the play but, she did nothing illegal and interference should not be called.

The step and a reach rule protects the fielder from contact but it does not protect the ball.

There are many other examples that could be given but, that's enough to prove the point that interference is only called on an illegal act.

NKYFP FAN

I'm not sure what you interpret that to mean, and I'm tired of the bananas.

R1@2B - grounder to F6 R1 runs and accidentally contacts F6's glove as f6 is fielding it, causing F6 to miss the ball.

Interference or no?

If you got INT, we are on the same page. If you contend the runner did nothing illegal so it is not INT, you are wrong.

[NKYFP FAN]

Wadeintothem,
Please reread the OP. It is talking about a runner ACCIDENTLY making contact with a deflected (muffed) (missplayed) BALL.
You have given two case plays and one sample play where a runner makes contact with a FIELDER. Fielder and ball are two very different things. Everyone knows contact with a fielder is illegal, but that is not what we are talking about.

Please give us the rule # or the case play # in NFHS where it says " a runner is out when she ACCIDENTLY comes in contact with a deflected ball".

When you can do that, I will change my mind.


NKYFP FAN

[Al]

Wade writes: "That's bananas" "More bananas" and ..."I'm not sure what you interpret that to mean, and I'm tired of the bananas".

Knock-knock...Who's there? Orange... Orange who? Orange ya glad I didn't say Banana?

All that banana talk brought my 3 year old grand-girls favorite knock-knock joke to mind...

Seriously, Wade, I have to get a firm and correct understanding of what constitutes INT in a dropped 3rd strike situation. I just know this is gonna happen and I don't want to be unsure of what the proper call should be. I like what greymule has written, but I'm not exactly sure what would constitute an overt action by the BR. What I want to know is just how cut and dry the rule is. From reading the thread I think I'm not the only one who would like to be more sure before this sit happens to them.

Is it interference if a runner blindly gets hits from behind with a dropped 3rd strike that deflects off the catcher?

Would it be INT if a fielder has no chance to throw the BR out became of where the ball went after hitting the BR from behind?

Must there be some illegal or overt action by the BR before INT should be called?

If so, what would constitute overt action by the BR? ...Fun at the ole' ball park! Thank you! ...Al