NFHS rules.R1 on 2B. Ground ball hit to F6.R1 stops in base path to avoid contact with F6. F6 fumbles ball and it drops on ground in front of F6. R1 jumps over ball as she proceeds to third. F6 hesitated in picking up ball as R1 was jumping over ball. I ruled no interference as it was no longer a batted ball and R1 did not intentionally interfere. Your comments please.

Sounds like a good call to me. The runner can't be expected to stand around forever waiting for F6 to fumble around after the ball. Since there was no contact between the runner and F6, I think you made a good no-call.

SamC

Since "problem" was caused by F6 mishandling of ball, no interference unless intentional. That was the right call.

Steve M

Okay, I'm going to sit the top of the fence and offer some questions.

Why isn't it still a "batted ball"? Has it been fielded at this point? Even a deflected ball is still a batted ball in the rules, what makes this one different?

The runner has more options than just waiting for the play. The runner could have proceeded around F6 any time she chose to do so. Actually, by waiting until the fielder actually reached for the ball to proceed, that could be ruled INT just as if a player altered their stride to intentionally step between a batted ball and a fielder.

Just some questions :)

No call. The runner tried to avoid contact and in fact did avoid contact. Even on a straight ground ball, if the runner was simply making her way toward 3B and jumped over the ball, the fact that F6 was disconcerted or hesitated or had her vision blocked is just tough luck. Now if the runner intentionally acted to interfere, by yelling, waving her arms, standing in front of the fielder and then proceeding just as the ball got there, that's another story.

Short of deliberate visual/audible interference, the only interference I'd call on a ball that a fielder had already kicked would be actual physical contact. I think that's all I'd call even if the fielder didn't kick it. But this does bring up just what kind of non-contact should be called interference, and I'm not at all clear on it, even after a thousand ASA games.

I blew the following call a few years ago: R1 on 1B, B2 hits dying quail toward F4 on a hop. R1 stops to let ball go by, but the ball, with a lot of spin on it, bounced directly at R1. F4 started toward the ball and then stopped because R1 was there. Her stop fooled me, and I ruled that R1 interfered with the play, but that was incorrect.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
[

Why isn't it still a "batted ball"? Has it been fielded at this point? Even a deflected ball is still a batted ball in the rules, what makes this one different?


Mike,
I'm going to do something you don't like. There are rulings in baseball that the fielder is still protected from any inteference if the ball is "within a step and a reach". If the ball is deflected or fumbled beyond that point, then it is treated as a thrown ball, and inteference must be intentional. This seems to me to keep the balance between ofense and defense, and is what I apply to these type of plays in softball also. I don't have any official rulings in softball codes that use this exact wording.

This being said, in the sitch presented, I agree with the no call. If the fielder had kept going for the ball and inteference occured in that step and reach region, then I would invoke the penalty.


Roger Greene

[Edited by Roger Greene on May 1st, 2002 at 04:21 PM]

Intrference
 

Thanks for the insight and comments.

Intrference
 

Thanks for the insight and comments.