The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 14, 2008, 08:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 81
Interference or Nothing

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?
__________________
Don't be afraid to try new things.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 14, 2008, 09:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
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.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 14, 2008, 09:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
"intent" on this play is a rule for a different game.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 14, 2008, 01:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 962
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
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 20, 2008, 11:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 81
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.
__________________
Don't be afraid to try new things.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 20, 2008, 11:55am
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
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)
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 20, 2008, 12:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
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!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 20, 2008, 12:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
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?"
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 20, 2008, 07:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 9
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?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 20, 2008, 11:43pm
Al Al is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 207
Send a message via Yahoo to Al
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 21, 2008, 10:48am
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
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.
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 22, 2008, 10:57am
Al Al is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 207
Send a message via Yahoo to Al
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 22, 2008, 11:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
Quote:
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.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 22, 2008, 08:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7
[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
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 22, 2008, 08:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
Quote:
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.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS

Last edited by wadeintothem; Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:55pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interference? sprivitor Softball 6 Tue Aug 07, 2007 03:46pm
Interference? canadaump6 Baseball 13 Thu Jul 05, 2007 02:53am
Runner interference versus umpire interference Jay R Baseball 1 Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm
Interference WinterWillie Softball 6 Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:13pm
interference? refjef40 Softball 4 Sun May 04, 2003 01:14pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:32pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1