Speaking ASA

This is not a new rule. This changed for the 2007 season.

A runner moving out of the running lane and getting hit by a thrown ball.
A runner having fallen (in the case book or test) and getting hit as they stand up

I could go on with every little possibility. The key is the runner cannot do something which causes interference and it need not be intentional. This is why we say a runner who is retired cannot just go POOF at that second. They are where they belong as the play is continuing. Move away from that area in a direction other than to where s/he was heading and interfere and someone else is going to be called out.

Same with the batter. This is why batters are now instructed to not make any moves other than a natural recovery after a swing.

I am the coach for runner. Not the Fielder. But this same scenario came up last year where the roles were reversed.

So I wanted some good feedback. Although the rule book says nothing about Intentional or not, it seems the general consensus is "Look for obvious intentions".

So I'll go with that.

Thanks.

Well, its not interference. Otherwise catchers would throw at the runner more than they already do. I would say your catcher was probably TRYING to hit the runner; which I've seen many times.. or made a bad throw.

Those are all seperate rules discussion and not a part of this rules discussion or rule.

Got it. Thank you, I-Maf.

I'm mainly a baseball ump, and do some high school softball for my association, but hardly any ASA, so I make little effort to keep up on ASA rule changes, except through this forum. The corresponding Fed rule is 8-6-10(d), which reads "A runner is out when . . . the runner interferes . . . intentionally with a . . . thrown ball." (my emphasis)

This thread sent me to the ASA rule differences chart (at asasoftball.com/umpires) which confirms Canary's and IrishMafia's shocking news that the word "intentionally" has been dropped from ASA rule 8-7-J-3. That chart says "A runner may not interfere with a thrown ball causing interference. It no longer has to be intentional."

So it seems that the letter of the rule supports Canary's original postion. But the consensus of the worthies of this forum seems to be that everyone knows that if the runner is just doing what you would expect, then inadvertent interference is not an out. Is there a casebook play or an authoritative ruling to this effect, or is this just civil disobedience? What was ASA's purpose in dropping the word "intentional" from the rule? How's an ump like me reading the rule supposed to know about the universal contra-literal interpretation of the rule?

So Canary has a good question:
1. Batter hits possible triple to right. While sliding in on a close play at third with her arms spread, the thrown ball hits her on the left arm.

2. Catcher attempts to pick off a runner at third and the throw hits the runner on the helmet as she is running back to third base, as in the OP.

3. Runner is in a rundown between first and second. As she is moving towards second, F4 catches a throw and, as the runner stops and stands up and is looking at F4, F4 throws the ball back towards F3, inadvertently bouncing it off the runner's shoulder.

4. No. 3's runner falls to her hands during the rundown, and while immediately getting up at the spot where she fell, she gets bonked from behind by a throw, sort of like IrishMafia's example.

In all cases, the runner reaches the base without being tagged, the contact of the ball with the runner hinders a fielder's attempt to execute a play, and no one (runner or fielder) intentionally caused the contact.

Are any of these cases outs?

Although "intentional" was dropped, the word interference was not dropped and that still requires an "act that".

So it does not support Canarys original position at all.

His position is that if the catcher beans a runner with the ball, the runner is out. While that my make for a funner game in some respects, thats not the case. The runner still must commit interference for there to be interference.

The question is .. what did the runner do to interfere?
Canary's answer is shaded towards his view point, but still the same as: "Failed to dodge the catchers throw"

Thats not interference. Thats a bad throw.

Not in this sport.

Maybe dodge softball.

Dude ... there isn't anything shaded, as I said before ... this IS my runner. I'm trying to be objective.

Failure to dodge is one thing, deliberately standing in the path of a ball is another. That is why the rule book has verbiage about letting a pitch hit you versus "in the umpires opinion, made an effort ...". It all comes down to weather or not the BU / PU can decipher the runner's actions.

Youre mixing rules. A pitch has nothing to do with this so stick to the rules at hand.

Calling your catcher beaning a runner "a runner intentionally standing in a path" is shading it. How could this runner know where your catcher would throw it? Now if this runner, seeing the throw, moved into a path of a thrown ball and blocked it - that would probably be an act of interference. Failure to dodge a throw is not an act. There is no requirement to dodge a pick off attempt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
Inteference with a thrown ball has to be intentional.


OK, still not completely shifted from HS.

I don't think he is mixing the rules, I believe he is pointing out the rule books position of different scenarios. All of which hold the the runner (or batter) accountable. And if this runner saw the catcher starting to throw the ball and turn her back to the catcher and allowed her self to block the F5, then there could be a questionable call. I don't believe anyone here has the cahunas(SP?) to make such a call. Perhaps the reason they took the word "intentionally" out of the rule was because to many people were pulling off a good "acting" job. Without the word "intentional" you are forced to watch your P's and Q's.

But it does leave it wide open to start hitting runners, as well as runners blocking a baseman by casually walking back to a base with a slight lean to the left or right.

my two cents.

First, as a Spanish-speaker, it's cojones. :)

Second, I believe the reason for getting rid of "intentionally" in the INT rules is because, frankly, none of us are mind readers.

If we are going to stray from the rule being discussed and discuss extraneous issues and nonapplicable rules and even you would admit this is a judgement issue -

Tell my why I want to protect a catcher with control problems and skill issues attempting improbable waste of time pick offs at 3B where a runner is literally in the process of returning to 3B when they should be just returning the ball to the pitcher?

This is dumb move catcher -- so why am I looking to help that? Why should my judgment and cajones favor a call in that?

My mind is saying "wow that catcher sure was dumb".

Why should it say "Runner is out for interfering"?

If we can get to the heart of that, the judgement of the play - maybe we can get a better understanding of the thought process that determines whether the runner committed an act of INT or the catcher was just commiting a dumb play.

cojones/cajones

Urban Dictionary: cajones

For an extensive treatment of uses of cojones in Spanish:

http://www.rincondechistes.com/nacio...s/cojones.html

The original poster made it clear this catcher was picking runners off third base the entire game, so your attacks on the catchers skills are not necessary.

The poster has already conceded to agree with a "no call" early in this thread (and if I understand correctly, is in his favor since this was his runner), and already stated it would have to be a judgment call.

I can see how this could turn up into an interference call. And possibly a brawl on the field. If it was my runner I would say something to them and let know they walked a fine line, and took a big chance.