Interesting play............

[Cajun Reff]

USSSA Girls 12U fastpitch

R1 at first, R2 at second, 2 outs

B1 hits ball to SS, SS throws to second to get R2 and overthrows into right field, R1 comes around 3rd and scores

RF throws ball into the infield to the pitcher to stop R2 at 3rd base and R3 at first. Ball gets away from pitcher and rolls towards the ondeck circle where R1 has picked up a bat and is returning to the dugout. R2 breaks for home, R3 breaks for second base.

As the ball rolls towards the dugout fence, R1 uses the bat she just picked up and stops the ball with it with a lite tap. The ball rolls back to the infield where the pitcher picks it up and attempts to tag (she missed the tag) R2 just before R2 scores and R3 reach 3rd base.

what the heck do you rule on that? R1 interfered with the play, but she aided the opposing pitcher in recovering the ball. The BU and I conferred, niether of us knew what to rule and we didnt have a USSSA rule handy in the park (it was in my car). So I sent R2 back to third and R3 back to second and played on from there with two outs.

[NCASAUmp]

Well, I haven't done U-trip since the mid-90s, but you have one of three options: interference by a runner who has already scored, a blocked ball situation (offensive equipment, not defensive), or nothing.

I had a similar situation where a throw from the outfield to 3B was off. It bounced off the on-deck batter's foot and popped up into the air, where the pitcher caught it cleanly. The pitcher threw to home and nearly got the runner going home. If anything, the little tap aided the defense instead of hindering, so I ruled that nothing happened.

[Cajun Reff]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Well, I haven't done U-trip since the mid-90s, but you have one of three options: interference by a runner who has already scored, a blocked ball situation (offensive equipment, not defensive), or nothing.

I had a similar situation where a throw from the outfield to 3B was off. It bounced off the on-deck batter's foot and popped up into the air, where the pitcher caught it cleanly. The pitcher threw to home and nearly got the runner going home. If anything, the little tap aided the defense instead of hindering, so I ruled that nothing happened.

that is what I ruled by allowing R2 to go back to 3rd and R3 to go back to second, basically "no harm no foul"

but I had no rulebook justification for it. On the flip side my assertiveness and confidence made it seem like I knew what I was doing so both coaches took the ruling without a peep.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Cajun Reff

that is what I ruled by allowing R2 to go back to 3rd and R3 to go back to second, basically "no harm no foul"

but I had no rulebook justification for it. On the flip side my assertiveness and confidence made it seem like I knew what I was doing so both coaches took the ruling without a peep.

I'm confused. If the ruling in either case was that "nothing happened", then no ruling, nothing can be changed, the runners stay wherever they reached.

In any rule set, a blocked ball is a dead ball, runners stay at the last base reached. Possibly by accident, "R2 to go back to 3rd and R3 to go back to second" would be the result of a dead ball. But, the runner being played on, if there is one, should be out (R2 in the bat case, R going home in the foot case).

Should we decide that an infraction is or isn't? See below.

[NM FP Ump]

Cajun,

I think you got it right. Even though the result of the interference by R1 could have aided the defense to get an out, you have to call dead ball immediately and return the runners to the base(s) last touched at the time of the interference. If you didn't kill the play and there was an out at home on R2, the OC could say that the defense was aided by R1. On the other side of the coin, if R1 accidentally kicked the ball into the dugout, she would have aided the offense (2 base award from the throw) and the DC would be yelling. The rule is worded so that neither team gets an advantage.

Had a similar play this weekend. Same rule set, 12U (thought you were my partner for a moment). Batter hits ball to F5, F5 underthrows the ball to F3, BR reaches 1st base and the ball caroms off the dugout pole, back to the BR, who then kicks the ball into RF (inadvertent kick). I killed the play right there. No other runners on, but the BR wanted to take extra bases.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I'm confused. If the ruling in either case was that "nothing happened", then no ruling, nothing can be changed, the runners stay wherever they reached.

In any rule set, a blocked ball is a dead ball, runners stay at the last base reached. Possibly by accident, "R2 to go back to 3rd and R3 to go back to second" would be the result of a dead ball. But, the runner being played on, if there is one, should be out (R2 in the bat case, R going home in the foot case).

Should we decide that an infraction is or isn't? See below.

Agree. If this happened and no runners were in action on the bases, I would ruled the ball blocked and runners go to last touched base. You cannot do that if you don't kill the ball.

However, if there is action on the basepaths and there was any possibility the defense could have gotten an out, that is going to be INT. Remember, in this case, there was more than one runner moving. The fact that it is perceived (and that is all it is) to have aided the defense is not a factor in the rule. For as much as we know, it could have bounced off the front of the dugout toward the catcher who may have retired R2, or the F5 who could have had a possible play on R2 @ 2B.

[DeputyUICHousto]

rule, dead ball and put runners back. I don't see where this would be interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

No doubt, an INT ruling is going to be based upon the umpire's judgment.

Speaking ASA

INTERFERENCE. The act by an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.


Note, an out need not be imminent.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No doubt, an INT ruling is going to be based upon the umpire's judgment.

Speaking ASA

INTERFERENCE. The act by an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.


Note, an out need not be imminent.

But a play does, and a play means an attempt to retire a runner or BR. The umpire judgment would be... was there a play at the time R1 tapped the ball?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

But a play does, and a play means an attempt to retire a runner or BR. The umpire judgment would be... was there a play at the time R1 tapped the ball?

That is correct, but it is simply an attempt to retire an offensive player, not an imminent out.

And from the OP, apparently there was a play at the plate. And then there is that pesky BR which could have been retired at 3B. Of course, it is all judgment, but sitting at a computer not seeing the field, the fence, speed of the ball & runners, location of the defenders, etc. we really cannot tell.

However, INT cannot be dismissed simply because the offense's transgression resulted in the ball heading toward a defender and I believe that is what some have done in this thread.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

However, INT cannot be dismissed simply because the offense's transgression resulted in the ball heading toward a defender and I believe that is what some have done in this thread.

Agreed.

[wadeintothem]

For ASA Discussion Purposes:

On this play I am judging INT and I believe the only ruling you can support by rule is INT. This is not a blocked ball and I do not think there is justification for only killing the play unless you revert to 10.1 for whatever reason...

I am not nostradamus, so I must factor the fact that a retired offensive player intentionally altered the path of the ball while defense was attempting to make a play and in fact had a play. INT, R2 out, R3 to 2B and I become the hated blue for not the first time and wont be the last. This is Interference, plain and simple.

[Linknblue]

When we call "DEAD BALL!". I've got interference on the "one with the bat" don't we also have an out? Wouldn't that be the closest one to home?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Linknblue

When we call "DEAD BALL!". I've got interference on the "one with the bat" don't we also have an out? Wouldn't that be the closest one to home?

yep... thats our out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

For ASA Discussion Purposes:

On this play I am judging INT and I believe the only ruling you can support by rule is INT. This is not a blocked ball and I do not think there is justification for only killing the play unless you revert to 10.1 for whatever reason...

I am not nostradamus, so I must factor the fact that a retired offensive player intentionally altered the path of the ball while defense was attempting to make a play and in fact had a play. INT, R2 out, R3 to 2B and I become the hated blue for not the first time and wont be the last. This is Interference, plain and simple.

There is also the point that the offense should know better than to touch a live ball. The offense screwed up this play, not the defense and if there was any possibility that there could have been a play......