The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 24, 2009, 10:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1
rule 8 section 2 F

I am a relatively new umpire and I am having problems with this rule> Everytime I ask fellow umpires for theis interpretation it differs. The calls in questions usually involve the ball batted toward the shortstop and the runner on second breaking for third. My interpreation is interference occurs if contact is made between the runner and fielder whether " intent" was made or not by the runner. Additionally interference can be called if the runner stops and obstructs the view of the shortstop with intent.

I was observing a recent game and this rule was enforced when the runner on second took off with contact and never hesitated. The runner did not have to jump the ball nor was there any contact made between the fielder and runner. In fact the there was several feet of space between the two. The explanation given was that the runner "obstructed" the fielder from clear view by running between the ball and the fielder thus the runner interfered with the fielding of the ball. I disagree but I'm still somewhat of a rookie umpire. Any feedback?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 24, 2009, 11:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by needmore View Post
I am a relatively new umpire and I am having problems with this rule> Everytime I ask fellow umpires for theis interpretation it differs. The calls in questions usually involve the ball batted toward the shortstop and the runner on second breaking for third. My interpreation is interference occurs if contact is made between the runner and fielder whether " intent" was made or not by the runner. Additionally interference can be called if the runner stops and obstructs the view of the shortstop with intent.
Contact is irrelevant to the call, though it makes it an easier sell.

Quote:
I was observing a recent game and this rule was enforced when the runner on second took off with contact and never hesitated. The runner did not have to jump the ball nor was there any contact made between the fielder and runner. In fact the there was several feet of space between the two. The explanation given was that the runner "obstructed" the fielder from clear view by running between the ball and the fielder thus the runner interfered with the fielding of the ball. I disagree but I'm still somewhat of a rookie umpire. Any feedback?
Bull! It may have been INT, but the "space" between the two and the vision are also irrelevant. There is nothing which guarantees a fielder with a "clear view" of the batted ball.

Unless the runner actually committed an act of INT, this sounds like nothing to me.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 12:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 257
R1 on second, pop fly to F6. R1 run to within a foot of F6. R1 then sharply cut behind F6. R1 movements momentarily distracted F6. I should have call Int but didn't, I hesitated and F6 caught the ball for the 3rd out. I saw the 3rd base coach applauded F1's base running.

I went to the coach and told him I should have called INT and will next time. He said, "there was no contact". I said, "there is no contacted needed just my judgement that she INT". I then said, "heck I might even eject you for unsportmanship if I see it again".

There was one other opportunity were I might have saw it. I didn't.

Last edited by vcblue; Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 01:04pm. Reason: Because Irishmafia and SRW made fun me :( HA
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 12:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcblue View Post
R1 on second, pop fly to F6. R1 run to within a foot of F6. R1 then sharply cut behind F6. F1 movements momentarily distracted F6.
You are contemplating calling INT because the pitcher distracted the shortstop?

Boy, you're tough!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 01:01pm
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcblue View Post
I saw the 3rd base coach applauded F1's base running.
Probably wishing that his R1 could run the bases as well as F1.

__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 03:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
You are contemplating calling INT because the pitcher distracted the shortstop?

Boy, you're tough!
Ahhhh c'mon....I contemplate an out on every 3 balls 2 strike count.....I know the pitcher is wanting to throw a strike.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 25, 2009, 04:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 257
Last edited by vcblue; Today at 01:04pm. Reason: Because Irishmafia and SRW made fun me HA
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rule 10, Section 20, Article 4 NCAA carldog Basketball 2 Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:15am
Interpreting ASA Rule 3, Section 7 recblue Softball 1 Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:00pm
Rule 4 section 21 BigJoe Basketball 24 Mon Jan 27, 2003 03:26pm
HS Fed Rule 8, Section 2, Article 5, 8. Tag-Ups Al McCormick Baseball 5 Wed Apr 24, 2002 05:50am
Rule 3, Section 4 & 5 tschriver Basketball 7 Mon Dec 11, 2000 11:57pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1