The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Interference / Blocked Ball / Nothing (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/54898-interference-blocked-ball-nothing.html)

NCASAUmp Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:45am

Interference / Blocked Ball / Nothing
 
Situation: R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B. No outs. B3 hits a grounder to F6, who fields it cleanly and steps on 2B for the force out. B3 is a fast runner, and there's no chance of a play on him. R1 is a slow runner, so F6 turns and throws to F5 covering 3B. However, R2, who is now out, is heading towards his dugout on the 3B side when he is hit with the throw. The umpire judges that R2 did not deliberately attempt to block the throw.

Is it nothing (keeping the ball live)? Do you have INT? Or could you call a blocked ball, and if so, would you send R1 back to 2B?

greymule Mon Oct 05, 2009 01:09pm

Normally, it would be nothing, but I think you HTBT. I'm having a hard time visualizing how R2 could get positioned so that F6 could hit him with a throw to 3B.

NCASAUmp Mon Oct 05, 2009 01:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by greymule (Post 628984)
Normally, it would be nothing, but I think you HTBT. I'm having a hard time visualizing how R2 could get positioned so that F6 could hit him with a throw to 3B.

Yeah, as did I. This isn't a scenario that I thought up or witnessed, but something that was brought up on another board. I think the OP on that board said that F6 "pump-faked" to 1B, but decided to go to 3B instead. R2, thinking the throw was going to 1B, rounded inside the diamond and headed towards the dugout.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Oct 05, 2009 01:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 628955)
Situation: R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B. No outs. B3 hits a grounder to F6, who fields it cleanly and steps on 2B for the force out. B3 is a fast runner, and there's no chance of a play on him. R1 is a slow runner, so F6 turns and throws to F5 covering 3B. However, R2, who is now out, is heading towards his dugout on the 3B side when he is hit with the throw. The umpire judges that R2 did not deliberately attempt to block the throw.

Is it nothing (keeping the ball live)? Do you have INT? Or could you call a blocked ball, and if so, would you send R1 back to 2B?

Speaking ASA

INT, R1 is ruled out.

Though allowed to continue one's running tasks, this isn't what R2 was doing and has an obligation to NOT get involved in any subsequent play.

8.7.P. Pretty much the same as the recently cited play where a fallen retired runner, even though still in what was his basepath stands up and is hit with a throw in an attempt to make a play on another runner.

NCASAUmp Mon Oct 05, 2009 02:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 629002)
Speaking ASA

INT, R1 is ruled out.

Though allowed to continue one's running tasks, this isn't what R2 was doing and has an obligation to NOT get involved in any subsequent play.

8.7.P. Pretty much the same as the recently cited play where a fallen retired runner, even though still in what was his basepath stands up and is hit with a throw in an attempt to make a play on another runner.

My thoughts on this were that yes, the runner can't just go "poof" as we always say here (and elsewhere). However, to me, the key is whether or not the runner had enough time to get out of the way of any potential play. If R2 had sufficient time to react and choose the wrong path, then we would have INT. If not, then it's a case of "runner can't just go 'poof.'"

Ref Ump Welsch Mon Oct 05, 2009 03:01pm

I would say this is a HTBT sitch. Like Dave said, it would depend on how much time elapsed and if R2 had a chance to react and get out of the way. But I know one thing, if it's judged that R2 didn't INT, the BU will definitely catch hell from the defense and prepare for an interesting discussion with their coach/manager.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Oct 05, 2009 03:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 629004)
My thoughts on this were that yes, the runner can't just go "poof" as we always say here (and elsewhere). However, to me, the key is whether or not the runner had enough time to get out of the way of any potential play. If R1 had sufficient time to react and choose the wrong path, then we would have INT. If not, then it's a case of "runner can't just go 'poof.'"

You are right, the runner cannot just go "poof". However, that doesn't mean the runner can choose their path of exit without suffering the ramifications if they interfere.

The offense cannot have it both ways. The defense should not be required to read the minds or body language of the opponent. The runner cannot go poof when they are doing what they are supposed to do, hence the protection at that point. What they are supposed to do is try to advance toward the base, not turn out one way or the other.

greymule Mon Oct 05, 2009 04:39pm

Yes, by proceeding from being out on the way to 2B to somewhere between 2B and 3B, the runner committed an "act," however unintentional, that caused him to interfere.

Ref Ump Welsch Mon Oct 05, 2009 05:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 629035)
You are right, the runner cannot just go "poof". However, that doesn't mean the runner can choose their path of exit without suffering the ramifications if they interfere.

The offense cannot have it both ways. The defense should not be required to read the minds or body language of the opponent. The runner cannot go poof when they are doing what they are supposed to do, hence the protection at that point. What they are supposed to do is try to advance toward the base, not turn out one way or the other.

This is the retired runner we're talking about. Your previous posting, you talked about R1 who was already going from 2B to 3B. Are we confusing the two, or mixing up the terminology? :confused:

IRISHMAFIA Mon Oct 05, 2009 05:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch (Post 629064)
This is the retired runner we're talking about. Your previous posting, you talked about R1 who was already going from 2B to 3B. Are we confusing the two, or mixing up the terminology? :confused:

R1 is the runner closest to home who is the player to be declared out when a retired runner is guilty of INT.

Ref Ump Welsch Mon Oct 05, 2009 07:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 629073)
R1 is the runner closest to home who is the player to be declared out when a retired runner is guilty of INT.

My bad, it was Dave who referred to R1 as R2 or the other way around. Got the posts mixed up in my mind when I reading through them.

NCASAUmp Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch (Post 629083)
My bad, it was Dave who referred to R1 as R2 or the other way around. Got the posts mixed up in my mind when I reading through them.

Oops. :D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1