interfence or obstruction

[MJT]

NF rules.

Play tonight in our JV game. 1-2 count and the batter swings and misses on a ball that short hops the catcher. The ball bounces away from the catcher and just in front of home plate. The right handed batter goes to run to first base and they get tangled up as the catcher comes out to field the ball. Eventually they get untangled and the catcher fields the ball and throws her out at first base. I was the base ump, and the plate ump didn't call anything, so we had an out first at first base.

We looked in the book on the way home and it seemed to fit the definitions of interference and obstruction. What should the call have been, and PLEASE give a rule or case number.

[kcg NC2Ablu]

this is one of those things that I would want to see first hand to be able to tell you what it was. However, you have two players doing what they are supposed to do. The BR should be running to first and the catcher should be going after the ball. I would probably throw out a safe signal to let people know I saw what happened but they were both legally doing what they were supposed to do so no obstruction and no interference. Again I would want to see the play happen to give you a real answer with a rule.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MJT

NF rules.

Play tonight in our JV game. 1-2 count and the batter swings and misses on a ball that short hops the catcher. The ball bounces away from the catcher and just in front of home plate. The right handed batter goes to run to first base and they get tangled up as the catcher comes out to field the ball. Eventually they get untangled and the catcher fields the ball and throws her out at first base. I was the base ump, and the plate ump didn't call anything, so we had an out first at first base.

We looked in the book on the way home and it seemed to fit the definitions of interference and obstruction. What should the call have been, and PLEASE give a rule or case number.

Isn't that the defined exception to the "no train wrecks" rule, IOW to be a non-call even though there are concurrent INT & OBS?

[MNBlue]

If I remember correctly, Iowa is playing their NFHS season in the summer, so you are talking NFHS rules.

NFHS says this situation is interference.

In NFHS 8.2.6, you have the following:

The batter-runner shall be called out when:
...or (F.P) interferes with a dropped third strike. ...

Looking in the 2009 case book, on page 50, 8.2.6 Situation D is directly on point.

There are no runners on base with two outs; B3 has a count of 3-2. On the next pitch B3 swings and misses. The ball bounces off F2's shin guard and lands in front of home plate. As F2 moves out to field the ball, B3 runs into her, knocking her down. Ruling: This is interference. The umpire would call "dead ball" and rule the batter-runner out. In addition, if there were any runner(s) on base, they would be returned to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

I believe ASA would have this be a wreck with a no call. Correct?

[AtlUmpSteve]

I have the same ruling in ASA as NFHS casebook play. Cite ASA 8.2-E(6).

Batter-runner isn't doing "what she is supposed to do". Under cited NFHS and ASA rules, the BR must avoid interfering with the catcher making the play on the dropped third strike.

The NCAA rule 12-2c heads in the same direction, and then adds a note not used in ASA or NFHS; "If both player' actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is inadvertant contact and not interference or obstruction."

Personally, I believe that defining one or the other as having the right of way (as defining this as interference) means contact must be avoided to not interfere. But, the NCAA version allows the BR to believe she can run without regard to interference, so long as the contact appears not intentional.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Isn't that the defined exception to the "no train wrecks" rule, IOW to be a non-call even though there are concurrent INT & OBS?

No. The one exception noted refers to a batted ball in front of home plate, not a dropped third strike.

I'm sure someone will opine that the catcher already failed to catch the ball, and shouldn't be protected. I will state that the batter already failed to make contact with pitched ball, and has less right to be protected.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

No. The one exception noted refers to a batted ball in front of home plate, not a dropped third strike.

I'm sure someone will opine that the catcher already failed to catch the ball, and shouldn't be protected. I will state that the batter already failed to make contact with pitched ball, and has less right to be protected.

Yes, I like that. Especially when the batter swung at a pitch that bounced in front of the plate!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

No. The one exception noted refers to a batted ball in front of home plate, not a dropped third strike.

I'm sure someone will opine that the catcher already failed to catch the ball, and shouldn't be protected. I will state that the batter already failed to make contact with pitched ball, and has less right to be protected.

I'm sure some of you remember that there was an attempt to get this rule changed in ASA a couple years ago to require the BR's actions to be intentional on a U3K a few years ago, but that was the same year as they were dropping intent from damn near every other form of INT. Bad timing, I guess.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I have the same ruling in ASA as NFHS casebook play. Cite ASA 8.2-E(6).

Yep - you're right. Just to clarify though, it is ASA 8.2-F(6)

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

No. The one exception noted refers to a batted ball in front of home plate, not a dropped third strike.

Thanks.