R3 blocks thrown ball from F2-F5

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Canary

Actually I was the AC for the runner.

Although intentional was not flagrant or flamboyant, she knew the catcher was picking them off on third like flies on dung. I felt she knew it was coming. They didn't call her out. But I felt she deserved to be called out. Especially since when she made no effort to get back to the base or to avoid the thrown ball. It probably is going to be a judgment call. Intentional or not, at what point do we relieve the runner of the responsibility to avoid interference?

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.

If they make no effort to avoid a wild pitch, and get hit..no base awarded. If they hang over the strike zone and get hit they get a strike called, if they hit a batted ball before a fielder can attempt to filed it they are out.

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

[Paul L]

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:

Originally Posted by Canary

at what point do we relieve the runner of the responsibility to avoid interference?

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?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Paul L

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.

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.

[wadeintothem]

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?

Not in this sport.

Maybe dodge softball.

[Canary]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Although "intentional" was dropped, the word
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.

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Canary

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Paul L

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."

Old news. This took place in November of 2006 within view of Pike's Peak.

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?

I don't believe Canary had a position, just a question.

I don't understand you comments. The rule is written just fine. The only reason I fought against the change was to avoid overreaction-type of conversations like this one.

The purpose of the change was because the definition of interference does not include intent AND because interference is a judgment call, so the umpire should judge whether the player's actions caused the interference, not judge whether it was or was not intentional.

And we all know that because, like anyone who works ASA ball should do, we attended the appropriate clinics and schools.