Interference on a walked batter

[jmkupka]

Love hearing about rulings, then checking them out here for their validity...

My experienced partner, who played fastpitch himself for 20 yrs as F2, says: with R1 on 3rd, ball 4 to the batter, in order to prevent the rundown trick ( to score R1), he used to fire the ball down to F3 before BR reached 1B. Again, this just prevented BR from rounding 1B. This technique was known to the umpires who called his games.

His point to me was, if said BR happened to be outside the 3' running lane (in fair territory) and got hit with the throw, BR is out for INT (and R1 back to 3B if trying to advance).

What say my mentors?

[RKBUmp]

In Fed play you do have the possibility of interference on the throw to F3 if the runner is not in the lane. In ASA play you have nothing.

[vcblue]

He is wrong. Base of Balls is an AWARDED base. The definnition of interference states, "... attemping to execute a play." . Therefore no PLAY can be made on this runner until she reaches 1st base. Since she was hit by the ball before reaching 1st I have a live ball.

[Rich Ives]

If you call an out then the catcher will wait and plunk the runner on purpose every time to get an out.

Probably not a good idea.

[RKBUmp]

Under Fed rules he is correct. Case study 8.2.5 Situation B. R1 is on third, and the batter receives a base on balls. The batter-runner runs to first completely in fair territory (outside of the three-foot running lane) the last half distance to first. The cather throws the ball to first and the throw strikes the batter-runner. Ruling: If the umpire judges that the batter-runner interfered with a legitimate play by the catcher, she should be called out. Comment: All bases must be run legally, even awarded bases.

Personally Im giving the batter the benifit of the doubt on a play like this and it better be pretty obvious that some kind of play was going on and not just some attempt to plunk the batter to get the call.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

If you call an out then the catcher will wait and plunk the runner on purpose every time to get an out.

Probably not a good idea.

And (at least in NFHS ball) maybe someone will wake up and coach the girls to stay in the running lane.
Seems a pretty simple way to avoid a possible out, (not to mention injury).

Personally, I'm not too excited about having to make the call, but I do always wonder about people who whine when the out is correctly called.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Under Fed rules he is correct. Case study 8.2.5 Situation B. R1 is on third, and the batter receives a base on balls. The batter-runner runs to first completely in fair territory (outside of the three-foot running lane) the last half distance to first. The cather throws the ball to first and the throw strikes the batter-runner. Ruling: If the umpire judges that the batter-runner interfered with a legitimate play by the catcher, she should be called out. Comment: All bases must be run legally, even awarded bases.

Personally Im giving the batter the benifit of the doubt on a play like this and it better be pretty obvious that some kind of play was going on and not just some attempt to plunk the batter to get the call.

The key words in the NFHS Casebook Play RULING are: "legitmate play". I know what F2's intent was in throwing to F3, but I can not see this as a "legitimate play".

Just my humble two cents.

MTD, Sr.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The key words in the NFHS Casebook Play RULING are: "legitmate play". I know what F2's intent was in throwing to F3, but I can not see this as a "legitimate play".

Just my humble two cents.

MTD, Sr.

The legitimate play in question here, would be the right of the defense to hold the BR at first. In the case book play, there is a runner at third as well. As you know, in most cases, teams will automatically send the BR to second in this situation, as the defense is usually focused on the runner at 3rd. This is, allegedly, a way to prevent the BR from being able to automatically advance. Therefore, as the NFHS rule book clearly states, "all bases must be run legally, even awarded ones."

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The key words in the NFHS Casebook Play RULING are: "legitmate play". I know what F2's intent was in throwing to F3, but I can not see this as a "legitimate play".

Just my humble two cents.

MTD, Sr.

NFHS has a broader definition of a play than does ASA.

ASA:

Rule 1 PLAY: An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player. A pitch is not considered a play except as it relates to an appeal.

NFHS:

Rule 2 ART. 2 . . . Make a Play.
a. Any action by the pitcher intended to cause a reaction from the runner(s) as it pertains to the look-back rule (F.P.).
b. Any action by a fielder who is attempting to catch or gain control of a batted or thrown ball.
c. An attempt by a defensive player to retire a runner or a batter-runner.

ASA requires a play to be an attempt to retire an offensive player. NFHS does not.

Neither one, however, recognizes hitting an offensive player with the ball to be a play, and both require the running lane interference to be interfering with the fielder taking the throw at 1st base, not with the throw itself. Therefore, it still must be a legitimate throw to a player covering 1st base.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Love hearing about rulings, then checking them out here for their validity...

My experienced partner, who played fastpitch himself for 20 yrs as F2, says: with R1 on 3rd, ball 4 to the batter, in order to prevent the rundown trick ( to score R1), he used to fire the ball down to F3 before BR reached 1B. Again, this just prevented BR from rounding 1B. This technique was known to the umpires who called his games.

His point to me was, if said BR happened to be outside the 3' running lane (in fair territory) and got hit with the throw, BR is out for INT (and R1 back to 3B if trying to advance).

What say my mentors?

I find it hard to believe some are debating NFHS rules for your partner.

ASA does not recognize this as a valid play since there is no opportunity to retire the BR.

But if you really want to get your partner going, tell him it is a stupid play.

NCAA players have it right, return the ball to the pitcher. The pitcher is the closest single player to all possible plays. The pitcher having the ball also puts the LBR in effect when it becomes available.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I find it hard to believe some are debating NFHS rules for your partner.

ASA does not recognize this as a valid play since there is no opportunity to retire the BR.

But if you really want to get your partner going, tell him it is a stupid play.

NCAA players have it right, return the ball to the pitcher. The pitcher is the closest single player to all possible plays. The pitcher having the ball also puts the LBR in effect when it becomes available.

IrishMafia:

You hit the nail right on its head. Your clear thinking requires me to offer you that chance to be become a "made man" in the "real" Mafia, .

MTD, Sr.

[WestMichiganBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

NCAA players have it right, return the ball to the pitcher. The pitcher is the closest single player to all possible plays. The pitcher having the ball also puts the LBR in effect when it becomes available.

What good is returning the ball to the pitcher? That is the problem; the B-R automatically rounds 1B and heads to 2B. Either:

a) she gets a free base (happens all the time in sub-varsity, 12U, and even 14U travel), or

b) she draws a throw and R1 has an opportunity to score. Either way, bad news for the defense.

But if F2 snaps a quick throw to F3, then F3 is facing R1 and can throw back home to retire R1. Otherwise, if B-R takes a step off 1B she gets tagged by F3. Either way, good news for the defense.

Only way to defeat this defensive maneuver is for a smart B-R to run through the base 10' - 15', then advance towards 2B. (So far, I have not seen that "smart" B-R.)

I'm not sure why you brought in the LBR; it's not part of this discussion. Sure it goes into effect when the B-R hits 1B, but if she turns the corner and keeps on going to 2B, there is no violation.

Finally, adult women playing NCAA ball are far superior defensive players than the teenagers that seem to be the subject of this posting. Adult B-R's are not going to attempt this gaming trick because the defenders can make quick, powerfull, and accurate throws and prevent the runner from going home. But at the lower levels it is still a defensive problem.

Because it does happen a lot at lower levels, it is good to bring it up on lthis board so that the newer umpires understand the correct mechanics. Too often both umpires will be watching the pitcher/B-R interaction. But the PU has to watch R1 for possible LBR violation and leave the B-R to the BU.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichiganBlue

What good is returning the ball to the pitcher? That is the problem; the B-R automatically rounds 1B and heads to 2B. Either:

F1 has the least, absolutely unobstructed throwing lanes than anyone else. A "snap" throw to F3 means nothing if they have to wait for the runner which means R1 can move closer to home with the ball in the hands of a player nearly twice as far a way thus facilitating that runners ability to score WITHOUT risking the BR being put out.

I'm not sure why you brought in the LBR; it's not part of this discussion. Sure it goes into effect when the B-R hits 1B, but if she turns the corner and keeps on going to 2B, there is no violation.

But R1 must commit at that time and unless it is home, the defense still has the opportunity to put-out the BR with R1 60' away instead of 45' or less.

Finally, adult women playing NCAA ball are far superior defensive players than the teenagers that seem to be the subject of this posting. Adult B-R's are not going to attempt this gaming trick because the defenders can make quick, powerfull, and accurate throws and prevent the runner from going home. But at the lower levels it is still a defensive problem.

And the coaches and offensive players are not as equally inept and physically restricted as the defensive players at the younger ages?

It is nothing new. I was taught this in baseball in the '50s. Only difference was the lack of the LBR. Oh, did I mention that even moreso at the younger ages, the pitcher is quite often the more accurate and harder throwing player on the field even in softball?

Sorry, Bubba, I've seen this work quite well even at the younger ages. Looks more awkward, but no more so than the circus we see with the play it is meant to prevent.

[jmkupka]

Appreciate the feedback... while this one's low on the list of likely scenarios, I did want to verify what the rule is. So here's my take:

Not trying to get a cheap out on a walked batter, but in legitimately getting the ball to F3 to prevent the rundown crap, F2 hits the BR out of the running lane, we have a live ball, play on (speaking ASA). Right?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Appreciate the feedback... while this one's low on the list of likely scenarios, I did want to verify what the rule is. So here's my take:

Not trying to get a cheap out on a walked batter, but in legitimately getting the ball to F3 to prevent the rundown crap, F2 hits the BR out of the running lane, we have a live ball, play on (speaking ASA). Right?

Speaking ASA

If F2 throws to F3 AND accidentally hits the BR, it is a live ball.