R3 blocks thrown ball from F2-F5
 

Scenario:


2009 ASA
Runner on third attempts lead off after the pitch. The catcher sees an extended lead off and attempts a pick off. However, the 3R meandered back to third and made no effort to avoid the line play. The catcher made an attempt to throw the ball to F5. When the 3R saw F5's glove go up in front of her, and 3R's coach told her to look out, only then was she concerned about getting out of the way. The struck her on the helmet.

Was the runner out for interference of thrown ball?

RULE 1 - THE DEFINITIONS
INTERFERENCE: The act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator
that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a
play. Contact is not necessary.

Section 6. A RUNNER MUST RETURN TO THEIR BASE.
C. When a batter, batter-runner or runner is called out for interference. All
other runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

RULE 8 - BATTER-RUNNER AND RUNNER
Section 7. THE RUNNER IS OUT.
J. When a runner interferes:
1. With a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or a foul fly ball, or
2. With a fielder attempting to throw the ball, or
3. With a thrown ball.
EFFECT: If this interference, in the umpire’s judgment is an attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the runner is put out, the immediate trailing runner shall also be called out.
4. Intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected batted ball.
EFFECT: The ball is dead and the runner is out. All other runners must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference

Because of the potential interference called against a runner, you'll notice many runners on third base, including most of our players, will actually stand in the third-base foul territory with one foot touching the edge of the bag. A runner attempting to still home, and attempts to retreat back to third, cannot allow themselves to act as a block (intentionally or not) to the attempted pick off on third. We must be smart runners and not allow ourselves to become blocks to a play.

The situation during last Monday's game: A third base runner jumped out for a lead, and stayed on the base line (which anyone would normally do out of habit). The catcher saw enough of a lead and attempted to pick off the runner. However, the runner was directly in the line of play and unconsciously allowed herself to become a block to a thrown ball. (RULE 1-definitions, Interference). The runners position interfered with a thrown ball, and she was hit with the throw. (RULE 8, Section 7J, bullet 3). This was not an attempt for a double play therefore no other runner would be called out. On this occasion the third base runner is out, and all runners must go back to the base they occupied at the time of the interference.

This is softball, not dodgeball.

First question, and let's all be honest here... Are you a coach? A player?

I got nothing on this play.

This in not int. The runner is not obligated to move.

its OOO to try to sell anything on this play.

Let the catcher learn how to do a pick.

^What he said.^ Though somehow, I doubt we have heard the last of this.

The bottom line here is: did the runner do everything they were supposed to? Yes? We've got no out call on this one.

Wow...this is a beginning of the season 10U rec ball question.

Why do you think runners are taught to leave 3rd towards home in foul territory and return in fair territory.

I will help you: Because it's legal!

BTW your post title s/b:F2 commits an error when trying to pick off R3 return to 3rd. :)

Inteference with a thrown ball has to be intentional.

No, that is not true. Fought like hell to keep it so, but lost.

Youre probably right; someone will always want to call something on everything :D

No

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?

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.

As I already said, this is softball, not dodgeball. The defense does not get a runner out by hitting them with a thrown ball.

Other than a (first base three foot) running lane violation, can you give an example and a rule cite?
BTW, I'd guess Canary is the F2 in question.

Until that runner grows eyes on the back of her head to know where the ball is at, no umpire in their right mind is going to call her out. The runner had every right to run where she was running, and she made no obvious effort to interfere with the throw.

Coach, you're not going to get this call.

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.

That doesnt answer the question.

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMC (dumb move catcher) in a judgement call?

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

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.

Why should an umpire be looking to protect a DMR (dumb move runner) in a judgment call?
What business does an umpire have protecting anybody?
Call it like you see it. Saying "DMC" is presumptuous. Maybe it wasn't, maybe the runner saw the catcher release the ball and deliberately turn there back to it. We don't know. The general consensus is look for the obvious intent. Canary made an evaluation against his own player, and felt s/he deliberately blocked the play.

As already stated "Judgment Call"

What is dumb is the ridiculous actions of runners on 3rd when they run toward the plate.

IMO, the OP indicates the runner was turned away from the plate, so I doubt there was any INT on behalf of the runner.

BTW, the runner determines their path and if it happens to be in the catcher's perceived throwing lane, the catcher better find another lane or don't throw the ball.

Yeah, it was DMC.

The umpires should only provide the protection of proper enforcement of the rules.

Calling anyone or their actions dumb is a bit overboard. The same language directed at you, when umpiring, would probably earn a player or manager an ejection.

Your agreement with, assessment of, or evaluation of the players strategies should have no bearing on enforcing the rules.

While players don't have eyes in the back of the head, they do have eyes in the front and someone (who is in front of them) will have to catch the throw that is coming from behind them.

You may not have familiarity with rules and I understand that, but believe me, there are MANY calls made to protect someone on a given play. Interference, OBS & Delayed dead ball, and infield fly rule are a few examples you could begin to learn about and we could help.

An umpire determining a runner deliberately blocked a thrown ball would be INT. Thats been stated as well.

As presented in the OP, it is dumb move catcher.

Youre very new here but DMC, DMR, DMP, etc are all very commonly used terms to describe dumb plays by players.. and yes DMU for .. you guessed it! Dumb Move Umpire.

That excellent answer was post #4 in the thread. We are now on page 3. I love the interwebs. :cool:

Take it easy. F2's coach is probably not thrilled with that throw either. F2's job is to keep runners from scoring and throwing the ball in a place where a teammate can't catch it is not the smartest move. Wade's description fits just fine.

In my games I've seen dumb moves by catchers, pitchers, batters, runners, coaches, even--yes--umpires.

Say what? :confused:

I understand you may not be very experienced, but after 40+ years of baseball and softball, I know the rules (and our job) are to protect the game, not the players.

"Deliberate" is the general consensus to avoid a call. *not* a rule. As already determined, it does not have to be intentional. Per the rules.

Your injecting your evaluation of a player into the rules. Weather it was DMC or not, does not dismiss INT, especially *IF* the runner saw the throw coming in. Maybe she did ... maybe she didn't. OP indicates the runner turned back before the throw. INT per the rule book?....weeeelllll .... yeah. Will we call it? Heck No. Chalk it up as a bad throw. But it is an interference. I guess I would have to actually watch the eye of the runner to tell if they were looking at the catcher when the ball was released, only then could I say she knew where the ball was, and she had the opportunity to dive back low to avoid contact with the ball.

But lets look at it backwards. Let say the runner did see the throw coming in. And the runner evaded the throw(and injury), but it caused the runner to go out of path and/or miss the base. Would it be OBS? I think so. The runner is awarded the base.

So..

• if the runner sees the throw coming in and takes a hit, its interference.
• if the runner sees the throw coming in and avoids INT, and as a result misses the base, it OBS.
• if the runner dose not see throw coming in and takes a hit, attempted base awarded.

Delayed dead ball.

Aaahhhhh, no, no and no. Sit down, you're out!

Big Grin :D

Legally running the bases. I believe that is a rule or concept. Why did the OP writer leave that out of his detailed analysis. Purposely or did not think of it?

If in the line of throw. Too bad for the thrower.

As for OCASA, with over 40 years of umpiring, I don't understand how you could come up with the 3 scenarios you have and think something could be wrong.

I am going to assume you were trying to get a rise out of somebody. If not, . . .

The catcher did what she wanted, threw down to third. Runner did what she was suppose to do: return to 3rd base. Throw hit her. It ain't nothing and to continue to beat this play is perplexing.

Any six year old kid on the sandlot with no rule knowledge would understand -- ain't nothing. (saw that wording in a movie)


Finally, umpires can have opinions of plays independent of the game. We can extricate ourselves from the game, look at a play and form an opinion on a play's intelligence or lack of it. Given that it is done from the keyboard, it is not interjecting. That is a stretch, over reach.

Sometimes players make dumb plays. Are they aware that is a dumb play. May be not but it still can be a dumb play. Those are separate issues and make sure you understand which one the writer is asserting. If not sure, ask.

Really? Well there have been new versions of the rule book written in the past 40 years - might want to grab a newer copy - it explains your role of protecting players on certain plays.

?

This makes no sense.


[quote]
Your injecting your evaluation of a player into the rules. Weather it was DMC or not, does not dismiss INT, especially *IF* the runner saw the throw coming in. Maybe she did ... maybe she didn't. OP indicates the runner turned back before the throw. INT per the rule book?....weeeelllll .... yeah.

[\quote]


No, its not INT per the book; but you havent read one in 40 years so you wouldnt know that, anymore than your role of protecting a player in certain isntances.

In addition to reading the book, you might want to attend a clinic. A book and a good clinic and you might get a grip on this ole INT thing.



Sad...

Really sad.

The call is to enforce the rule. The rule is to "protect" the players. In the some of cases you cite (interference and obstruction) the rule provides a remedy for an illegal action that has already occurred. Even in the case of delayed dead ball calls (obstruction and illegal pitch) the illegal action has already happened and the rule provides the remedy. The way you used "protect" was not in the spirit of the rules, it was meant as sarcasm to denigrate an action that you criticized as "dumb" and unworthy of your "protection". The rules provide protection for the offended team without regard to your opinion of the illegal act.

Whether I'm new or not I feel that using terms like this paints all umpires as unprofessional. The umpires job isn't to decide the value, worth or even "dumbness level" of the players and coaches actions, but whether or not they comply with the rules.

Well, you know what opinions are like? I'd suggest getting over it as it is in common usage on this MB; nonetheless, you are certainly entitled to opinion - its the very nature of this mb.

As for my opinion - some of you guys are spending way too much time worrying about the gravy while completely goofing up the steak and potatoes.

Jeez... this thread has been taken over by (as a famous entertainer might say) "the maroons."

I always thought it was to keep from being hit by a fair batted ball which will result in an out.

So, Marvin, you are in the C with runners at the corners, bottom of 7th, 2 outs, score is 4-3.

Hard ground ball toward the middle fielded by F6. R5 cedes the force at 2B, but less than two steps from the base guns the ball by F3 to the fence. R5 now thinking she is a freakin' roadrunner, is put out at 3B. BTW, because of this play, you ended up going 15 innings before the home team pulls out the win.

Now, how would you refer to the decision made by F6 in the 7th inning?

Seth:

Last week, in a boys' H.S. varsity game I saw Team H's F2 make the most dumbest play I had ever seen a H.S. player make. I am in the C, runner on 2nd with zero outs and a 3-1 count on the batter. Next pitch is ball 4, the B/R takes off for 1st, while F2 immediately turns around and starts complaining to my partner (the PU) about the pitch being called ball 4. Guess where the runners were by the time F2's coach reminded him that the ball was still live? You guessed it, 2nd and 3rd. Would you believe that Team V did not score that inning after that bonehead play by H's F2.

MTD, Sr.

That must have been because the new catcher did a great job of holding them and calling a good game.

That explains leading off in FOUL territory..
What is your explaination of returning in FAIR territory....
;)

Im thinking to block a pick off attempt.. :D

As for my opinion - some of you guys are spending way too much time worrying about the gravy while completely goofing up the steak and potatoes.

Well said.;)

Absolutely a Wade gem.

Alright, how do you guys quote someone using the gray shaded box?

Thanks.

There are two ways. You can write the code, which takes a while, or, you can hit the button that says "quote" in the lower right hand corner of this, or any post.

Testing.:):):):D

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Just be nice when doing quotes...

Yes that is correct going from 3rd to home, but you come back to 3rd in fair so the catcher does not have a straight shot to the bag or possibly even getting hit by the ball ensuring a safe return.

I agree!

I'm stealing this! :)

Bingo - ;)

Legally, of course