The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Non-D3K Situation (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/52662-non-d3k-situation.html)

JefferMC Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:04am

Maybe I've been getting this wrong...

I read the exception to say that a batter who has just been retired for the first or second out on strikes where the third one was dropped (i.e. 1B was occupied), is not causing interference just because she runs to first and F2 makes a DMC and throws to first.

However, if she then gets hit with said throw, then she has interfered with the defenses ability to put out the other runner and, despite the exception, is still guilty of interference and should cause the runner closest to home to also be out. And in this case, I wouldn't care if in the running lane or not.:)

Am I off the reservation?

IRISHMAFIA Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JefferMC (Post 593551)
Maybe I've been getting this wrong...

I read the exception to say that a batter who has just been retired for the first or second out on strikes where the third one was dropped (i.e. 1B was occupied), is not causing interference just because she runs to first and F2 makes a DMC and throws to first.

However, if she then gets hit with said throw, then she has interfered with the defenses ability to put out the other runner and, despite the exception, is still guilty of interference and should cause the runner closest to home to also be out. And in this case, I wouldn't care if in the running lane or not.:)

Am I off the reservation?

Jeff,

I am addressing the last sentence of the OP which specifically addressed a violation for "drawing a throw". There is no other reason for the discussion about the "exception" to the rule.

Now, if as the umpire your judgment was that the catcher was throwing to make a play on another runner (and the play was viable, not just target practice trying to draw an out call), I can see an INT call AND it would be the runner closest to home.

Dakota Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 593557)
Jeff,

I am addressing the last sentence of the OP which specifically addressed a violation for "drawing a throw". There is no other reason for the discussion about the "exception" to the rule.

Now, if as the umpire your judgment was that the catcher was throwing to make a play on another runner (and the play was viable, not just target practice trying to draw an out call), I can see an INT call AND it would be the runner closest to home.

If the batter was still a batter (not strike 3), then it would be the batter who would be out.

Be that as it may, a throw to 1B with the batter running is not LIKELY to be a play on ANOTHER runner.

MichaelVA2000 Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Ump (Post 593431)
Was the runner in the running lane? :)

Two bases awarded on spectator's interfence?

I agree with no interfernce and believe it's 8-4-3f in NFHS if a thrown ball goes in dead ball territory.

You are correct, it is 8-4-3f. Typo on my part. Nice catch SC.:)

JefferMC Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:00am

Obviously, the throw to first was not a play on another runner (unless the runner on first decided to dive back). I just don't see that rulemakers intended that this exception would grant the retired runner more protection from interference than a legitimate BR would. A BR running in fair territory would be guilty of interence if hit in fair territory.

This retired runner WILL get the other runner more than just second that the DMC would otherwise simply by making sure she's in the way of the throw. Yes, I know the throw should never have happened.

IRISHMAFIA Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JefferMC (Post 593581)
Obviously, the throw to first was not a play on another runner (unless the runner on first decided to dive back). I just don't see that rulemakers intended that this exception would grant the retired runner more protection from interference than a legitimate BR would. A BR running in fair territory would be guilty of interence if hit in fair territory.

This retired runner WILL get the other runner more than just second that the DMC would otherwise simply by making sure she's in the way of the throw. Yes, I know the throw should never have happened.

Jeff,

You are overthinking this way too much. What protection is this player receiving from INT if there wasn't a play at 1B? None, zero, zilch, zip, nada, etc. A running lane is irrelevant since there is no BR!

This is not a difficult rule. The exception ONLY states that an offensive player who has been retired as a batter at the plate is not quilty of interference if they head toward 1B and draw a throw.

youngump Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 593585)
Jeff,

You are overthinking this way too much. What protection is this player receiving from INT if there wasn't a play at 1B? None, zero, zilch, zip, nada, etc. A running lane is irrelevant since there is no BR!

This is not a difficult rule. The exception ONLY states that an offensive player who has been retired as a batter at the plate is not quilty of interference if they head toward 1B and draw a throw.

If the ball goes into the dugout off a runner doing the wrong thing on a throw that wasn't a part of a legitimate play and as a result runners advance is the runner not guilty of interference? If the BR is walked and interferes with a throw to first while out of the running lane we have them out if there was a legitimate play anywhere on the field. If there wasn't a legitimate play and the ball goes out of play do they get to go to second or are they out?

Tangentially, I have no idea how that clause of the ruling (if there is a play) is really meant to be interpretted on a walk.
________
Glass Bong

IRISHMAFIA Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 593611)
If the ball goes into the dugout off a runner doing the wrong thing on a throw that wasn't a part of a legitimate play and as a result runners advance is the runner not guilty of interference?

The catcher threw the ball where she should not had. DMC. Live with it.

Quote:

If the BR is walked and interferes with a throw to first while out of the running lane we have them out if there was a legitimate play anywhere on the field. If there wasn't a legitimate play and the ball goes out of play do they get to go to second or are they out?
Not talking about a batter runner.

Quote:

Tangentially, I have no idea how that clause of the ruling (if there is a play) is really meant to be interpretted on a walk.
Who cares, we are not talking about a walk.

I give up.

JefferMC Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 593585)
Jeff,

You are overthinking this way too much. What protection is this player receiving from INT if there wasn't a play at 1B? None, zero, zilch, zip, nada, etc. A running lane is irrelevant since there is no BR!

This is not a difficult rule. The exception ONLY states that an offensive player who has been retired as a batter at the plate is not quilty of interference if they head toward 1B and draw a throw.

Okay, but if the runner already at first decides to dive back to first on the throw. Then we have interference, no? Would you care if the retired runner was in the running lane (I think not).

BretMan Fri Apr 03, 2009 01:14pm

Read the rule about the three-foot running lane and when it applies.

Note that this rule applies only to a batter-runner.

A batter running for first base, when not entitled to, is NOT a batter-runner.

In this case, the three-foot lane is not relevant. It essentially does not exist and has no bearing on the play.

CecilOne Fri Apr 03, 2009 02:05pm

If I apply this rule incorrectly, it will be from trying to make sense of this thread. :o ;) :)

A few of us need to skip it and reread tomorrow. :cool:

JefferMC Fri Apr 03, 2009 03:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BretMan (Post 593902)
In this case, the three-foot lane is not relevant. It essentially does not exist and has no bearing on the play.

Sorry I mentioned the lane. Truely sorry. Extreemly sorry. Please forgive me.:o


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1