The Official Forum - Interference (NFHS)

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)

- - Interference (NFHS) (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/48403-interference-nfhs.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

The reason I ask is because it happened last year in a HS game I was calling. Slow runner from second, F6 feigns to her left to catch a rather hard hit grounder, turned and took 4 steps into the runner. No throw. She was obviously fishing for INT, which I didn't give her. DC came unglued, not to the point of asking to leave, though.

So if she tags her, she's out. If she then throws to 1B, you might get two. So why fish for INT? Was there a runner scoring on the play?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I think I'd have to see it to call that.:D Seriously but, I am thinking you would have nothing, if the fielder has possession of the ball then they are not liable for OBS, if runner is not doing anything to cause INT they are ok, so you play on. how am I suppose to know if F6 is studder steping to throw or to lure runner closer so they can get a tag, then throw for a double play?

Not trying to be a smart a$$, but that is why you are getting paid. If you see the play with an open mind, you will know it when you see it. If you have a preconception of what you think is going to happen, it's quite possible you are going to see whatever it is you were anticipating as opposed to what actually happened. They may be one in the same, then again, they may not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by argodad

So if she tags her, she's out. If she then throws to 1B, you might get two. So why fish for INT? Was there a runner scoring on the play?

Yup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota

This interference situation, along with those that are close to it but something slightly different is judged by the umpire, is much discussed here and on the field when it occurs.

Assume R1 on 2B and an infield grounder where F6 would be the fielder who would be protected.

Let's assume the baserunner has done nothing to indicate anything other than running the bases full speed.

Let's assume the fielder has started to move to field the ball, but stops or slows or changes path and then proceeds after the runner has passed.

Let's assume that if SOMEBODY hadn't stopped / slowed / changed path, there would have been a collision

How do you judge interference here vs. dumb move fielder?

Tom - I hate to say it, but key word here is "judgement".

I understand that this is a cop-out, but I have to see the play to judge.

I will say that if the ball is hit in the vicinity of a baserunner, the onus is on the baserunner to be aware that a fielder may be in the area and avoid interfering with that fielder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

That is why I said I would seriously have to see it to rule on it. The actions of the players come into me making a judgement on the play. DC would have a quick re-glueing when I said "Coach in my judgement there was no INT, your player initiated the contact, no OBS since she had the ball but the offense didn't cause any INT in my judgement" if he / she don't get that they ain't gonna win with judgement used twice in the same sentence then lord help them!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I agree and that is why I said I would have to see it to judge it. I am not assumming what they are going to do, but I am going to have to see what they actually did to make a ruling, either INT, OBS (probably not with posession of the ball in this case) or nothing (as in Scott's case).

That is what is so hard in these plays, there is so much judgement involved and it takes so many little details to form the correct judgement it happens very often in this format (typeing a picture) that something is left out so it is hard to rule based on words. The devils in the details as they say, one small action can change an INT call to OBS...or an INT to nothing just depends on the exact situation!