ASA. R1 on 2B, ground ball to F6. R1 bumps into F6 as F6 attempts to field the ball. That's interference.

But if F6 has already fielded the ball, do you call interference on unintentional contact by R1? If so, is your criterion different from what it is if the fielder is in the act of fielding?

Fed interpeter in NJ says baseball or softball, runner interferes with the play, call interference. But that's Fed, not ASA.

Different game, of course, but in MLB I've seen R1 steamroll F6 after he fielded the ball, with nothing called (not even a tag out in the tangle).

Greymule,

The "act of fielding" a ground ball begins when a fielder starts to position themselves to glove the ball and continues up until the fielder voluntarily releases the ball usually to throw it to another fielder to make a play. If a runner contacts a fielder <b>at any time during this process</u>, interference must be called.

SamC

Thanks, SamC. Is that wording your own paraphrase, or are you quoting a section of a particular book? If so, let me know where to find it.

P.S. To your knowledge, does the same apply in OBR?

Greymule,

That is basically a summary of the rule as I understand it. This same ruling most certainly does also apply to OBR, infact the PBUC )formerly the NAPBL) Umpire's Manual spells this out clearly in Section 4 Interference,

SamC

I don't have my rule book handy (i.e. it's in the car and I don't wanna go get it so I'm just gonna wing this), but as I recall, ASA rules talk about a runner interfering with a fielder "making a play" (quote or close paraphrase), or interefeing with a thrown ball.

Certainly a fielder who has just gloved the ball and is preparing to make the throw is "making a play," right?

My rule book and case book are also in the car, and not wanting to take the elevator and walk the 100 yards, I also will wing it. I believe the book says "intentionally interferes with a thrown ball," and I can't remember anything about <i>unintentional</i> interference with a fielder "making a play." I'll look it up tonight. If you find it, please post it.

I would think that if PBUC prohibits unintentional interference with a fielder making a play, then all levels of softball would do the same.

Still winging it...

The ASA rules talk about interference with a fielder making a play (no mention of intent so intent not required), and intentional interference with a thrown ball (intent required.)

If no one has done so by this evening, I'll post the actual rule wording & selections from the POE.

Joining the others - my books are in the van too - but interference by a runner does not have to be intentional when it's running into a fielder. It's Rule 8, Section 8, and about 4 or 5 articles. The runner may not interfere with a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or who is attempting to throw the ball that he just fielded. Now, much of the time when the runner contacts a fielder who has already fielded the ball but not yet thrown it, there is some contact with the glove so we should get the out on the tag. At that point, the retired runner muxt intentionally interfere with the fielder who is attempting to throw the ball.

Steve M

ASA 8.8.J

It states "attempting to field" a batted ball.

POE states "executing a play".

My belief is that you will know it when you see it. Simply running into a player who is standing there with the ball isn't exactly smart. However, who said ballplayers were smart?

I would not call INT unless the offensive team member caused the fielder to fail to make a play and I think that would be obvious to all when we see it.

Yes, POE #31 nails it. My book falls open to the permanent crease on 8-8-J. I think that rule should replace part 3, "with a fielder attempting to throw the ball," with the more general "with a fielder executing a play." I felt that simply having the ball, even if a throw was obviously imminent, was not the same as throwing the ball. I also wonder why the hard slide into 2B is considered fair and legal (in ASA and OBR), though it is obviously to cause the fielder, through physical contact, to be unable to execute the play.

My questions then are these:

1. Is the standard of interference with a fielder executing a play the same as for a fielder attempting to field a batted ball (where virtually any contact constitutes interference)? Or is there another standard, as I think Irish Mafia asserts?

2. What about the slide into second to break up the double play? Isn't that interfering with a fielder executing a play? Or is there something about nearness to the base that transforms that play into something else or makes it an exception? Or is it just accepted custom, like the "vicinity" play.

3. Is it something you simply have to judge case by case? In other words, if the fielder should have been able to make the play anyway, we ignore it?

Had a play not long ago where the BR went safely into 2B standing up on a close play and the fielder caught the ball right behind him. The BR stood motionless on 2B, and the fielder then attempted a throw home and got tangled in the BR. The defense wanted interference (naturally), but it seemed to me that if the BR is standing still right where he is supposed to be, he's OK. I felt that the fielder's actions brought him into the runner. Now I <i>know</i> that would have been a no-call when I played, but now I'm not so sure.

You've been very helpful, guys. Interference comes up a dozen times a year nowadays. When I played, it was not an issue—I can't remember ever seeing it!

Here's my view/opinion...

Speaking ASA...
Rule 1 – INTERFERENCE uses the phrase “attempting to execute a play.”
8-8-J-1 “attempting to field a batted ball”
8-8-J-3 “attempting to throw the ball”
8-8-J-4 “intentionally with a thrown ball”
8-8-Q “defensive player has the ball”
POE 13-A “fielder holding the ball”
POE 13-D “fielder holding the ball”
POE 31 “attempting to execute a play”, and “defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered”

I don’t think the standard is different. The runner nearly always must yield to a fielder with the ball, attempting a play, attempting to field a batted ball, or about to receive a thrown ball.

A slide will prevent a crash interference ruling as long as it is a slide intended to make contact with the base. The “take out” slide is illegal if the player is sliding with the obvious intent to interfere with the play – for example, a cleats-high slide. The MLB “take out” slide is illegal in ASA, and unsportsmanlike conduct if flagrant. However, contact with the fielder during a legal slide is not interference, even if it prevents a further play by the fielder. Again, you’ll know it when you see it.

In your situation of the player standing on the base, unless the runner did something intentional to interfere (wave arms, bob-and-weave to stay in the way, etc) then the fielder has to move from behind the runner.

Tom,

I agree with just about everything you state here except that no where does it say the runner must be sliding to attain a base to avoid interference. All the rule and POE state is that sliding, going over, under or around is an option for the runner to avoid being ruled out for interference.

True, and I didn't mean to imply that a runner must slide. I meant to say a runner may slide to avoid an interference call. As you point out, he has other choices, too. However, he cannot remain on his feet and crash into the fielder with the ball.

Intresting play that I observed in NC NFHS 2A simi finals in 2000.

R1 attempt to steal on pitch. H&R on. Batter hits ball just right of second base.(F2 would be pleased to throw ball so well.) F6, covering on steal, and less than a foot to the right of 2nd is taken out by R1 executing legal slide as she attempts to field batted ball.

Inteference with F6 attempting to field batted ball or no call?

Ruling on field was no call, R1 and BR safe. I posed the play on one of the softball boards before, and the consensus was no call.

Roger Greene

Looking at the ASA book, (yeah, I know you said NFHS), the slide exception is in the crash interference POE 13 and it pertains to a thrown ball. There is no slide exception for a runner being struck by a fair batted ball.

While the "no call" may seem fair, by rule, shouldn't the runner be out? It was a poorly executed hit and run, not a throw down by F2.

Interesting, but as long as there was a chance for a play somewhere, I think I'd have gone the other way. The book says, "interferes with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball." It doesn't add, "unless the runner is legally sliding in an attempt to reach a base" or "unless the runner would have been safe anyway" or "unless the interference is utterly unintentional." A few years ago, I had a similar play (though not a force) in a slow pitch tourney:

R1 on 2B, 2 out. B1 hits medium pop to F5, who stands about a foot inside 3B, in the baseline, to catch it. Just before the ball reaches F5, R1 executes a legal slide and contacts F5, knocking him off balance but not down. I called interference, 3 outs. The runner has to avoid the fielder, whether the runner is doing everything "right" or not.

You could ask, "What option did the runner have?" but sometimes there is no good option. It's just a bad break.

I admit I would have a no call in this case: R1 on 1B. B1 hits roller that goes past F1 and toward 2B. R1 slides in safe at 2B and gets tangled with F4 well before the ball gets to 2B. I determine that F4 had no play on B1.

I doubt if the ASA case book gives a play like this, but I'll check it now.

I think I'll agree with greymule here on the play posted by Roger...I've got interference. F6 is attemtpting to field a batted ball when R1 slides into her. No exceptions.

Me too, me too...
 

I would call interence in Roger's play as well. THe defense has a virtually unrestricted right-of-way to a batted ball, so the runner is just SOL in this case.

SamC

As long as the umpire judged that F6 was the protected fielder on this play, it should have been INT.

Dakota,
Runner was not hit by batted ball. F6 was flipped upside down by sliding runner before she completed fielding batted ball.

I'm not sure of proper call. I can argue this one both ways. I'm glad I was just watching that one.

Roger Greene

Yeah, you're right... that's what I get for visualizing instead of reading. Anyhow, as others have said, it is still interference.

On Roger's play, I've got a 'dead ball, out for R1 and for the interference, out for R2'. I had this in an ASA National in 1994 and the UIC said it was the proper call. In consulting the NFHS book, I believe it is the same.