Interference or Nothing

[varefump]

Fed. Rules - No outs, no one on base. B1 swings and misses strike 3. F2 has the ball pop out of her glove into fair territory. B1, after a slight hesitation, starts running toward 1st base. Ball contacts the foot of the BR in fair territory in front of the plate as the catcher is bending down to pick up the ball. The was NO intention by the BR to touch the ball.

The umpire ruled Interference and called B1 out.

Was the umpire correct?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Did the action of the BR impede or hinder the opportunity of the fielder to make the play on the ball? Sounds like the definition of interference in the FED book.

Now I have two questions. 1) How do you KNOW there was NO intention by the BR to touch the ball? 2) Why should intent have any bearing? The physical act illegally hindered the defense.

In the real world, any time you hinder someone, you are liable. Change lanes and unintentionally cause a collision with the car you didn't see in your blind spot, and tell us if the police or the insurance companies give you a free pass because you didn't intend it.

[wadeintothem]

"intent" on this play is a rule for a different game.

[DaveASA/FED]

Not sure step and reach applies here, if the fielder is hit, or hits (runs into) a batted ball prior to it passing a fielder (what I would see 10foot up the line) it is interference. That is a different scenerio from teh original post but again the step and reach is only on a fielder that is trying to gain control of a 'muffed' ball

[varefump]

So if the catcher muffs the pitch and it ricochets off her shinguard and the ball subsequently rolls against the foot of the runner (as she is legally running to first base) as the catcher is about to pick up the ball, we penalize the offense?

I'll never call that.

[SRW]

NFHS 8-2-6

The batter-runner is out... when the batter-runner interfers with a dropped third strike.

Pretty cut and dry to me.

BTW, ASA has the same thing: 8-2-F(6)

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

"intent" on this play is a rule for a different game.

And I like the way it is ruled in "the other game" a whole lot better!

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Agree, but if the ball landed 10 feet up the line, do we apply the step and reach concept even though it wasn't "batted"?

OK, dumb question, not after a muff and same ruling would apply.

The question then might be if it matters whether there was no play possible and if it is treated the same as a "batted" ball.
IOW, "Did the action of the BR impede or hinder the opportunity of the fielder to make the play on the ball?"

[dino14]

I know this is an old thread but I was searching for an opinion on the post I posted and came across this and decided to toss my two cents in. My question is since the catcher HAD an attempt to retire the batter by catching the third strike you would than have to believe the batter INTENTIONALLY tried to obstruct the catcher from making a play on him?

[Al]

Originally Posted by varefump

Fed. Rules - No outs, no one on base. B1 swings and misses strike 3. F2 has the ball pop out of her glove into fair territory. B1, after a slight hesitation, starts running toward 1st base. Ball contacts the foot of the BR in fair territory in front of the plate as the catcher is bending down to pick up the ball. The was NO intention by the BR to touch the ball.

The umpire ruled Interference and called B1 out.

Was the umpire correct?

Hey Varefump,

I don't see an out here since the BR is doing what she is suppose to be doing, which is starting her advance toward 1st base. Her foot probably would not have contacted the ball if she had a quicker start toward 1st, but once she realized the ball was dropped she started her advance. I don't think the Umpire made the correct call because both players where doing what they were suppose to be doing while they were in very close quarters to the plate and the ball. I think all we have here is ...no infraction, play on! ...Al

[SRW]

Guys...

Intent isn't required in this situation. Not in ASA and not in NFHS.

If interference happens on a dropped third strike by the batter-runner, then you've got an out. Period. End of story.

Go re-read that rule one more time.

[Al]

Originally Posted by SRW

Guys...

Intent isn't required in this situation. Not in ASA and not in NFHS.

If interference happens on a dropped third strike by the batter-runner, then you've got an out. Period. End of story.

Go re-read that rule one more time.

After a re-read of the ASA softball rule; and finding no exceptions to it, I now believe the umpire did make the correct call, SRW. But, IMO, this is a terrible rule. I can't understand a rule that would penalize a player when she has done nothing wrong. So a dropped 3rd strike that bounces off the the catchers mitt and hits the BR while still standing in the batters box must be called out by rule of interference? No wonder Mike tried to change this rule. But umpires are on the field to make calls according to the rules whether they think they are just, unjust, fair or unfair. I expect one day to have an upset coach telling me I made a bad call cause his player didn't do anything she wasn't suppose to be doing. Of couse, that's better than not making an inteference call and having a knowledgable coach protest. I suspect many of the fans and many coaches on the losing end of this goffy interference call won't go down without swinging (at the Ump). Thanks to all! ...Al

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Al

After a re-read of the ASA softball rule; and finding no exceptions to it, I now believe the umpire did make the correct call, SRW. But, IMO, this is a terrible rule. I can't understand a rule that would penalize a player when she has done nothing wrong. So a dropped 3rd strike that bounces off the the catchers mitt and hits the BR while still standing in the batters box must be called out by rule of interference?

No automatically..

Did the BR interfere with the play????

That is the question.

I agree with you and mike though, it could be better written. For me, the bb way of writing this rule is just fine and saves umpires from making errors and calling outs when they shouldnt.

ASA is trying to get outs that should be called.. as a fully foreseen (by many of the umps on this board) result they are getting outs that SHOULDNT be called.

[NKYFP FAN]

[Originally Posted by SRW
Guys...

Intent isn't required in this situation. Not in ASA and not in NFHS.

If interference happens on a dropped third strike by the batter-runner, then you've got an out. Period. End of story.

Go re-read that rule one more time.


Words have meaning. In 2007 NFHS added the word "Illegally" to the interference definition. There must be an illegal act committed in order for there to be interference. Running in a straight line to advance to the next base is not illegal. Getting hit by a deflected (muffed) ball is not illegal. Accidently coming in contact with a deflected (muffed) ball is not illegal.

The step and a reach rule only protects the fielder from contact with the runner, it does not protect the ball. The runner has done nothing illegal therefore, there is no interference on this play.

Remember the OP asked about NFHS rules not ASA.


NKYFP FAN

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by NKYFP FAN

[


Words have meaning. In 2007 NFHS added the word "Illegally" to the interference definition. There must be an illegal act committed in order for there to be interference. Running in a straight line to advance to the next base is not illegal. Getting hit by a deflected (muffed) ball is not illegal. Accidently coming in contact with a deflected (muffed) ball is not illegal.

The step and a reach rule only protects the fielder from contact with the runner, it does not protect the ball. The runner has done nothing illegal therefore, there is no interference on this play.

Remember the OP asked about NFHS rules not ASA.


NKYFP FAN

The rule does not state that the runner must commit an illegal act for it to be interference. The rule states/infers that impeding, hindering, or confusing any fielder is illegal.

I read it completely different than you state, it is in fact different than you state, and case plays, such as 8.2.6.d, 8.6.10d plus many more do not support your contention. Not only that, but your contention would expand the interference definition beyond it's use in any sport/association/rule set involving a bat and ball.