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

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.

I had to shake my head when it happened and then say to myself she is out.

Very strange play that I don't know if I will ever see again.

Are there more details? Why is she out?

The "3rd baseman attempting to field bunt is run into by the batter" looks like INT to me.

Bingo, BR runs into 3rd baseman trying to field the bunt, she is out!!!!!!!!!:D

What part of this are you missing, Wade?

If the B/R is doing nothing out of the ordinary, exiting the box normally and starting up the 1B line, Im not letting the 3d baseman 'crash' her and getting a cheap out.

Im not saying that's what happened here (not enough detail), but you can't let fielders start tackling B/Rs as they exit the box.

No,but...
 

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.

I dont automatically have INT on this play. You have a crashing fielder and a running runner. (presuming F5 was most likely to make the play, thus ruling out OBS).

This very well could be nothing IMO. It could be INT, but it sure as heck could be nothing. This is not automatic.

Would this fall under the same scenario as the catcher coming out and having a "run-in" with the BR who is headed to 1B on a bunt? Both players appear to be within their "rights" to be where they are. Neither player did anything out of the ordinary.

I'm siding with Wade that one could make a case for either no call or INT. Not an automatic out.

No, not IMO
 

The catcher and batter scenario, IMO, is in a different category. Although the rule book clearly states "Simply because there is contact between the defensive and offensive player does nto mean that obstruction or interference has occurred." It goes on to use a right handed batter laying down a bunt and the catcher scenario implied by your comment. But it seems to clear to me that this scenario is unique in that the catcher is playing behind the batter and the batter does not have a good view of the catcher. The OP seems more in line with a R1 interfering with F3 on a ground ball. R1 clearly could see the fielder and should have avoided F3. In the OP
B1 should have seen F5. Also, you seem to be overlooking that B1 got a late start out of the box. She did something out of the ordinary. I'm sure her coach wasn't happy about the late start.

Well.. I'd say a F5 crashing in front of a runner on a bunt up 1B line is not ordinary... so...

This one I'd like to see. By the description I got F5 crashing right in front of the box as runner leaving the box..

This sounds an awful lot like the BR/F2 scenario "doing what they are supposed to be doing" and the intent behind "train wreck" in that scenario.

That's not what the OP said
 

The OP said that F5 crashed the plate, which is what every F5 does when the batter squares around to bunt. That's normal. The batter was late leaving the box. That's not "doing what they are supposed to be doing". F5 was fielding a batted ball along first base line. By the description I don't see F5 being on top of the batter. She was probably moving laterally toward the first base line. Runner has to avoid! You also don't seem to think that the delay of the runner is significant. I do.

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. IMO and my partners the situation was the right call.

This is a very strange play indeed. I would have had to witness this myself before I made a ruling.

The delay in running might have caused the BR to be behind the fielder, but why is that relevant from a rule standpoint? It certainly does not read like holding back to set up intentional hindrance.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You mean like this non-call?

http://aycu35.webshots.com/image/191...2776267_rs.jpg
(Stolen from the baseball board - thanks, greymule!)

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

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/apph...4460ddf71e.jpg

Hesitated where? Its not in the OP.

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

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.....

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

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

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.

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?

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.

Thats a very good non call. No INT there.

Is that INT or trolling for a date?

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.

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?

While it may be INT, it isn't INT for the reason you offer. The player in the picture is not fielding a batted ball. The INT would be for interfering with a defender attempting to throw a ball (ASA 8.7.J.2).

Well, the assertion was made that we were moving down some little ball slippery slope....The two pictures, one from long ago and one from last week, illustrate two things: 1) MLB does NOT interpret interference according to the black-letter rule, and they never have (that is, it is not a slippery slope from the MLB perspective), and 2) If anything, MLB is moving (down or up... your choice) a slope to apply the interference rules MORE by the book, but still not completely by the book. There have been several "take out" plays this season that have been called as interference in MLB, so that when an 'old school" non-call happens (like the retro uni game ... as an aside, why on earth would the Astros ever bring back those fugly unis as retro... but I digress) it generates discussion among the BB umpires.

Do you use a black and white rule book strike zone definition in a 10 and under rec game? Bet you don't...that's because we are allowed to use our judgement in determining the quality and level of player and adjust accordingly. I don't need written permission from those you named to do that. That's just one example where we stray away from black and white. There are others, too many to go into.

I have never purported myself to be an expert, that is why I ask questions for clarification when I don't quite understand an application of a rule...what's wrong with that? Can't I get educated as well as a newbie? If you go look at my first post it started off with a question...not a statement of fact.

Clearly my point is lost on you; and it wasn't addressed so much toward you as purporting to be an expert. Yet, the answer that applies to this situation has been stated and restated; and this just isn't a situation (the one in the original post, exactly as stated) that has gray. One might try to add multiple alternate scenarios just to try to find one where the answer is different, but not the original post, as stated, without assuming more.

But, carry, as you wish.