The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 11:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 637
Ruling on an U3K

A play in a Phillies game the other night got me thinking, & couldn't find it in the book...

U3K, any contact of the ball with the B/R's person should result in Interference with catcher's chance to make an out? As soon as it bounces from mitt & hits the side of the batter's foot, am I killing the play & ringing him up (and sending stealing runners back to their base)?

ASA of course, Phillies reference irrelevant

Last edited by jmkupka; Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:35am. Reason: clarifying ASA rules
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 11:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,333
That is my understanding. All the classes I have been to have indicated that even if it is a ricochet off the catcher, if the ball contacts the batter it is dead, batter is out and all runners return.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 12:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKBUmp View Post
That is my understanding. All the classes I have been to have indicated that even if it is a ricochet off the catcher, if the ball contacts the batter it is dead, batter is out and all runners return.
ASA 8.2.BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.
F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
6. (Fast Pitch) a dropped third strike.

No intent is necessary.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 12:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
ASA 8.2.BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.
F. When the batter-runner interferes with:
6. (Fast Pitch) a dropped third strike.

No intent is necessary.

But is an "act" necessary?

Since act is part of the interference definition.

In other words does the offensive player have to do something to interfer?

(in reference to OP, ball hitting mitt then BR)

Last edited by luvthegame; Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 01:09pm.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 01:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
But is an "act" necessary?

Since act is part of the interference definition.

In other words does the offensive player have to do something to interfer?

(in reference to OP, ball hitting mitt then BR)
Precisely!!

To me, the prior rulings are taking the case over the line. The case book rulings refer to the batter kicking the ball while exiting; that is interference. Being in the batter's box when the catcher muffs the ball into the batter isn't interference. There has to be an "act" which interferes.

Intent not required doesn't change the definition that an action is required. Use the same mental criteria as the batter standing in the batter's box when the catcher wants to throw the ball. Unless a rule specificly requires a participant to yield a space (batter must allow a play at the plate, on-deck batters and base coaches must yield to allow a play on the ball), passively remaining in a legal space isn't interference, even if the ball touches them there.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 02:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 106
I agree.

So, in reference to OP (as explained) play...we probably have NOTHING.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 02:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
IMO, "As soon as" is the improper way to look at this potential INT call.

A ball hitting the foot is not necessarily INT. I think, as with all calls, especially INT, you review in your mind and assess and make your call (or non call). Give it a moment, dont do anything "as soon as".

Whats the big rush.

if you do have INT, everything is going back anyway, so you definately have a time to assess the situation to determine whether there is INT and a call to be made.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 03:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
I agree.

So, in reference to OP (as explained) play...we probably have NOTHING.
That depends. The OP stated it hit the foot. We were not told where the foot was, if it was moving, etc. If the foot isn't moving, then I have nothing. If the foot is moving, but has no affect on the ball and the catcher's ability to retreive it in a simple manner, no problem.

If the foot is moving, even in a pivoting fashion, and it "kicks" the ball away from the catcher, I would probably rule INT. Don't like it, but it has been made clear that intent is not an issue.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 08:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 106
The OP states the ball "bounces from mitt & hits the side of the batters foot."

Without trying to read anything else into it..thats clear enough for me....NOTHING!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 11:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
The OP states the ball "bounces from mitt & hits the side of the batters foot."

Without trying to read anything else into it..thats clear enough for me....NOTHING!
So, if the batter's foot is pivoting and knocks the ball away from the catcher and R1 goes from 1B to 3B, that's okay with you?


Not reading anything into the play, but not excluding anything either.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2009, 11:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
So, if the batter's foot is pivoting and knocks the ball away from the catcher and R1 goes from 1B to 3B, that's okay with you?


Not reading anything into the play, but not excluding anything either.
Your question does read into the play as it was described..... hell could freeze over...or any other "possibilities" (exclusions) could happen...but they aren't a part of the OP.

But I am sure you could turn it into interference...somehow...once you have your mind made up...you will find a way!!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 15, 2009, 01:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
Your question does read into the play as it was described.....
Actually, so does your ruling, since the OP did not say what the batter's foot was doing or not doing. You assumed it was not moving. But, the OP did not say that. The OP does not say where the ball went or whether it died right there, rebounded or was imparted additional velocity by the moving foot.

You assumptions seem reasonable given the paucity of information, but they still are assumptions.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 15, 2009, 01:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
Actually, so does your ruling, since the OP did not say what the batter's foot was doing or not doing. You assumed it was not moving. But, the OP did not say that. The OP does not say where the ball went or whether it died right there, rebounded or was imparted additional velocity by the moving foot.

You assumptions seem reasonable given the paucity of information, but they still are assumptions.
They are based on the information given...(I didn't read anything in to the play) but you can turn it into what ever you want...YOU might be able to find something there, if you try hard enough...but based on the info available (again, I didn't read anything into the play)...I still have NOTHING!

And it wouldn't matter to me what the foot was doing...unless it was something intentional...if the ball bounced off the mitt and into the foot, thats probably not interference!! If the ball hits the foot, as was stated, and not the foot hitting the ball....easy enough for me to figure out!

Last edited by luvthegame; Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:27am.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 15, 2009, 07:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 637
Re: Wade's "As soon as" comment...

I guess that was the gist of my question... is the play as instantaneously killable as, say, a foul ball off the batter's foot. Apparently not. Thanks guys.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 15, 2009, 09:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
...unless it was something intentional...
Citation, please.

BTW, you sure are defensive.

And, you DID read something into to the OP, and that was that nothing happened that was not stated. Given the lack of detail, that was an assumption. I'm not disagreeing with your ruling, given your assumptions.
__________________
Tom

Last edited by Dakota; Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:21am.
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
Your ruling? mcrowder Softball 30 Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:06am
FED DH Ruling largeone59 Baseball 8 Tue Aug 02, 2005 05:47am
ruling? xxssmen Basketball 3 Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:44am
What would be the ruling here? swordfish Football 7 Fri Jan 30, 2004 08:00am
What is the Ruling? Metrodom Basketball 15 Mon Jan 26, 2004 08:43pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1