Ever seen the BR run into the 3rd baseman on a bunt up the 1st base line?

[iowasoftballump]

Because I feel like that if the 3rd baseman would have been running up her back then it would have been OB but the fact that the 3rd baseman was in front of the BR that the BR had a chance to avoid her and not run into her.

[Andy]

As the original post mentioned, this is indeed a very strange play and highly unlikely that it will be seen again.

That said, I don't see any way that this is not interference on the BR. The bunt is up the first base line, F5 is fielding the bunt, BR runs into F5 going to first.

I know a lot of stuff we bring up here is HTBT, but this is not one of them, IMHO.

[AtlUmpSteve]

IMO, you are all headed back down the slippery slope that baseball uses to justify not making a call required by rule. The rules, taken by themselves, are exceptionally clear; the runner (or BR) has total right of way to be unhindered EXCEPT when the fielder possesses the ball, or is in the act of fielding it. In all cases of hindrence, the first category is obstruction, the second category is interference.

The rules editors left one and only one very narrowly defined instance when the basic rule above does not apply. They considered a circumstance where the fundamental nature of playing the game creates a proximity between batter and catcher that might not be possible to overlook. So, ONLY the BR and catcher in immediate area of home plate MIGHT be overlooked.

But, you guys have now looked at a play that isn't that one exception, and are looking to expand the exception back to the "she's just doing her job" explanation that ASA and NFHS softball are trying to eliminate. According to the rules of softball, this play is interference. Period. I don't care that F5 was fielding the ball near home or at the first base line; she is fielding a batted ball. I don't care when BR left the batters box, or if the delay was or wasn't intentional. I don't care that it seems to be close to the one exception; it isn't the one exception. If you keep trying to add another layer of exception, you might as well start calling little ball rules; and that is EXACTLY why softball made the rule as clear as it is, to STOP using little ball logic.

This one is black and white, and the discussion is only serving to start confusing those less sure of the rules.

[NM FP Ump]

F5 is fielding a batted ball, and B/R runs into her, you've got DEAD BALL, B/R is out!!! The delay by B/R has nothing to do with it.

Seems to be a textbook case of interference to me.

[Dakota]

Was F5 the fielder protected in this case? Where was F2/3? There were likely 3 (possibly 4 considering F1) fielders attempting to field the bunt. It would be highly unusual for F5 to be the closest fielder to a bunt up the first base line.

But, if she was, then I agree - interference. If she wasn't, obstruction.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

IMO, you are all headed back down the slippery slope that baseball uses to justify not making a call required by rule.....

You mean like this non-call?


(Stolen from the baseball board - thanks, greymule!)

Or, what got the topic started over there, this non-call...

[LMan]

Originally Posted by rwest

I don't need anymore information than what was presented. The 3rd baseman was fielding a bunt. The batter ran into her while in the act of fielding a fair batted ball. OUT! Its not "ordinary" for the runner to run into any defensive player fielding a batted ball. By the way, she didn't exit the box normally. She hesitated. Not that that really matters to me in this case. She still has to avoid F5.

Hesitated where? Its not in the OP.

Any other details you want to dribble out as the thread goes on?

I know it's a TWP, but I'm simply contesting the post(s) that there is no example where a BR would not be automatically out for being crashed by F5 (who is fielding a bunt). For discussion purposes, I don't think that is true. IRL, would probably never see it.

Your implication that a) batter weakly bunts and ball dribbles out slightly in front of plate; b) F5 is rushing in to field it, so; c) BR must stand motionless in box to await F5's tag is absurd.

/thread, before any impressionable young umps are led astray by a rules discussion.....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Or, what got the topic started over there, this non-call...

Talk about OFFENSIVE interference! No wonder this kid has a strange look on his face.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by LMan

Hesitated where? Its not in the OP.

Any other details you want to dribble out as the thread goes on?

I know it's a TWP, but I'm simply contesting the post(s) that there is no example where a BR would not be automatically out for being crashed by F5 (who is fielding a bunt). For discussion purposes, I don't think that is true. IRL, would probably never see it.

Your implication that a) batter weakly bunts and ball dribbles out slightly in front of plate; b) F5 is rushing in to field it, so; c) BR must stand motionless in box to await F5's tag is absurd.

/thread, before any impressionable young umps are led astray by a rules discussion.....

Originally Posted by iowasoftballump

I could not believe what I was seeing. 3rd baseman playing 2/3 down the line. Girl squares early to bunt, 3rd baseman crashes to the plate. Bunt goes up
1st base line and BR get a late jump out of the box. 3rd baseman attempting to field bunt is run into by the batter while running to 1st.

Late jump seems to be an hestiation to me. Need further proof? Ok here's some more....

Originally Posted by iowasoftballump

The delay in the runner leaving the box play a huge part in this and was even part of the conversation between me and the head coach between innings.

Again, delay to me seems like a hesitation and the original poster seems to agree with me.

No, the batter-runner doesn't have to just stand there and be tagged, but neither can she run into F5 fielding a live batted ball. You are assuming the batter-runner only has two options: to be tagged or interfere with F5. If that's the case, she's out either way. However, she has another option. To run around F5.

You also seem to overlook that the batter-runner had the opportunity to avoid F5. See quote below.

Originally Posted by iowasoftballump

Because I feel like that if the 3rd baseman would have been running up her back then it would have been OB but the fact that the 3rd baseman was in front of the BR that the BR had a chance to avoid her and not run into her.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Talk about OFFENSIVE interference! No wonder this kid has a strange look on his face.

Major League game, actually. And the B/W picture is 60 years old, so what's the point of discussing that?

As far as the little ball discussion and "exceptions" stated by another poster, to me this is interference plain and simple no matter if it's baseball or softball. F5 is a protected fielder fielding a batted ball. What's the discussion?

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

This one is black and white, and the discussion is only serving to start confusing those less sure of the rules.

I thought the whole idea of this forum was to promote discussion. The rulebook is full of black and white, and a whole lot of gray. Umpires judgement still counts.

I don't disagree with those saying BR is out but also see the other side.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You mean like this non-call?


(Stolen from the baseball board - thanks, greymule!)

Thats a very good non call. No INT there.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Is that INT or trolling for a date?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

I thought the whole idea of this forum was to promote discussion. The rulebook is full of black and white, and a whole lot of gray. Umpires judgement still counts.

I don't disagree with those saying BR is out but also see the other side.

IMO, there are times that contrarian views stated against black and white boilerplate rules have to be noted as that. Umpire judgement cannot be used to create policy that overrides the black and white of the rules; that privilege is limited to (for example) Dee Abrahamson in NCAA, Mary Struckhoff in NFHS, and Kevin Ryan or Craig Cress at ASA.

It seems to me that when supposed leaders are spouting and affirming something that is simply and totally wrong, it should be stated as such, not just offered as another part of a discussion, when part of our purpose for existence is to help educate. I know that some like to pose questions and offer positions to spur the thought process, but then the conversation needs to go back to the black and white, and those attempting to spur the thoughts should say so, rather than let the newbies think there is another possible answer.

In the OP in this thread, as worded, and as restated by the original poster, there can only be one right answer in the rules. It isn't much different than "What is the call when, with two strikes, the batter swings and misses, and the catcher catches the ball in flight?" Anything else is reading something that isn't there, or attempting to suggest what the policy should be, by personal preference, rather than any rule support. It isn't good discussion to suggest that in my alternate question that there is another valid answer; nor is it good discussion to continue claiming that "3rd baseman attempting to field bunt is run into by the batter while running to 1st" can be anything other than interference.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

nor is it good discussion to continue claiming that "3rd baseman attempting to field bunt is run into by the batter while running to 1st" can be anything other than interference.

You sure it can NEVER be anything but INT?

I'm pretty sure you know that statement is false so I'm not sure why you are saying it in middle of a rant alleging false statements.

Is this some pathetic attempt at irony?