The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Obstruction Question (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/58557-obstruction-question.html)

MountieSB Tue Jul 06, 2010 01:16pm

Interference Question
 
I'm a coach, not an umpire - please continue reading anyway! :)

R1 on first base, one out, B1 hits a high chopper to F4, F4 fields ball (has ball in glove) and R1 collides with F4 in the baseline. BU calls obstruction, R1 out for obstructing F4. Because F4 was run over, she was unable to complete a throw to first base to get that out (and turn a double play).

My question is this - Is this obstruction, or merely a collision that resulted in an out because of a tag (like you would get with a collision on a play at the plate)? Either way, R1 is out, but I'm just looking for clarification. Because we got an out (I was DC), I was obviously happy, but the other coaches and I were talking about it after the end of the game wondering if it was obstruction or just a tag out. Thoughts?

Thanks for your time.

Mike

topper Tue Jul 06, 2010 01:31pm

I think you mean interference, Mike.

It certainly could be interference as described. You could get the second out if the umpire judged the interference to prohibit the double play. Hard to say going by the information given.

NCASAUmp Tue Jul 06, 2010 01:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountieSB (Post 684621)
I'm a coach, not an umpire - please continue reading anyway! :)

Well, we can't ALL be perfect, now can we? Just kidding, Mike. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountieSB (Post 684621)
R1 on first base, one out, B1 hits a high chopper to F4, F4 fields ball (has ball in glove) and R1 collides with F4 in the baseline. BU calls obstruction, R1 out for obstructing F4. Because F4 was run over, she was unable to complete a throw to first base to get that out (and turn a double play).

Just a quick thing... What we're talking about here is not called "obstruction" in softball. Obstruction is when the defense illegally hinders a runner. Interference is when the offense illegally hinders the defense from getting an out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountieSB (Post 684621)
My question is this - Is this obstruction, or merely a collision that resulted in an out because of a tag (like you would get with a collision on a play at the plate)? Either way, R1 is out, but I'm just looking for clarification. Because we got an out (I was DC), I was obviously happy, but the other coaches and I were talking about it after the end of the game wondering if it was obstruction or just a tag out. Thoughts?

This sounds to me like your basic, run-of-the-mill interference call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountieSB (Post 684621)
Thanks for your time.

No problem.

Mike[/QUOTE]

Another Mike on the board? Uh oh...

HugoTafurst Tue Jul 06, 2010 01:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountieSB (Post 684621)
I'm a coach, not an umpire - please continue reading anyway! :)

R1 on first base, one out, B1 hits a high chopper to F4, F4 fields ball (has ball in glove) and R1 collides with F4 in the baseline. BU calls obstruction, R1 out for obstructing F4. Because F4 was run over, she was unable to complete a throw to first base to get that out (and turn a double play).

My question is this - Is this obstruction, or merely a collision that resulted in an out because of a tag (like you would get with a collision on a play at the plate)? Either way, R1 is out, but I'm just looking for clarification. Because we got an out (I was DC), I was obviously happy, but the other coaches and I were talking about it after the end of the game wondering if it was obstruction or just a tag out. Thoughts?

Thanks for your time.

Mike

Coach,
First (and it is a good thing to use the correct terminology when talking about these things), the "offense" commited by the runner would be interference.

The offense "interferes", the defense "obstructs".

As described, and (depending on which rule book you were using) your call could have gone a few different ways.
Now as to your play, the umpire called "interference" on R1 (rather than out on the tag) we still have to figure out what the interference was.

Could be interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball - in which case we would have R1 out and BR on firstbase, unless........

(in most books) umpire ruled it intentional for the purposes of preventing a double play in which case you could get your second out.

there are a few other possibilities, but those are the most obvious.

(Looks like I'm the slowest typer of the bunch)!!!

MountieSB Tue Jul 06, 2010 03:29pm

Thanks!
 
Thank you for your answers. Yes, I did mean "interference" (as is obvious, I'm a coach, but should still have known the difference by now!) I figured it was interference, but I wasn't sure if we could have gotten the second out based on what happened. The runner did not interfere intentionally - she accidentally ran into our F4.

I've been a lurker for a while, but I'm always looking to get better at what I do by observing what you guys do and talk about on this forum. I truly appreciate the clarification. Based on these responses, I'll be back!

Thanks again.

Mike

MD Longhorn Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:31am

Just curious --- was there ever a tag during this accidental collision?

MountieSB Wed Jul 07, 2010 01:25pm

mbcrowder
 
Yes. The F4 had the ball in her glove, turned to tag runner, and runner collided with her, but not intentionally. It was during a District Final game, so I have a video clip of it, I just don't know how to load it onto the Internet, or you could all see more clearly what happened.

HugoTafurst Wed Jul 07, 2010 05:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountieSB (Post 684759)
Yes. The F4 had the ball in her glove, turned to tag runner, and runner collided with her, but not intentionally. It was during a District Final game, so I have a video clip of it, I just don't know how to load it onto the Internet, or you could all see more clearly what happened.


So all this happened on a tag attempt!!

That adds a whole different dimension.

I'm having a much harder time picturing interference now!

Let's see if you get Hi tech enough to show the video!

MD Longhorn Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:25pm

Unless there was some serious attempt to prevent further play by that runner, you merely have an out. Inadvertent contact during a tag (um, isn't there, by definition, always contact on a tag?) is not interference.

PSUchem Thu Jul 08, 2010 06:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 684848)
Unless there was some serious attempt to prevent further play by that runner, you merely have an out. Inadvertent contact during a tag (um, isn't there, by definition, always contact on a tag?) is not interference.

Unless the runner did something like slap the ball out of the glove in an attempt to prevent the double play. Then you would have grounds for interference, and the batter also out.

IRISHMAFIA Thu Jul 08, 2010 06:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountieSB (Post 684621)
R1 on first base, one out, B1 hits a high chopper to F4, F4 fields ball (has ball in glove) and R1 collides with F4 in the baseline. BU calls obstruction, R1 out for obstructing F4. Because F4 was run over, she was unable to complete a throw to first base to get that out (and turn a double play).

My question is this - Is this obstruction, or merely a collision that resulted in an out because of a tag (like you would get with a collision on a play at the plate)? Either way, R1 is out, but I'm just looking for clarification. Because we got an out (I was DC), I was obviously happy, but the other coaches and I were talking about it after the end of the game wondering if it was obstruction or just a tag out. Thoughts?

Speaking ASA

The timing is important here. If the crash happened after the fielder received the ball and turned to make a play, the ball is dead, the runner declared out and all runners returned to last base touched at the time of the INT. Intentions are irrelevant (8.7.Q).

MountieSB Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:02pm

Video of Interference
 
I think I figured out how to post the video of the call in question:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D_s9EZ-SlP4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D_s9EZ-SlP4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Big Slick Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountieSB (Post 685120)
I think I figured out how to post the video of the call in question:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D_s9EZ-SlP4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D_s9EZ-SlP4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Did you check with your local chapter interpreter or district interpreter, being that this look like a game played in PA under NFHS rules.

Andy Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:27pm

I have a straight interference on this play...dead ball, runner out, BR on first.

It looks to me as if the collision happened just after the fielder got the ball. The fielder did not have time to try to tag the runner, then throw to first for the DP.

I would have an interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

MD Longhorn Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:32pm

I agree on Int and double play ... but not with your reasoning. If the fielder HAD the ball, as you say you believe she did, when contact was made, you don't have interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball.

MountieSB Mon Jul 12, 2010 02:00pm

Big Slick
 
It was a game in PA under NFHS rules. We didn't call an interpreter because it didn't affect the outcome of the game and we were satisfied with the original call. This was just talk we had after the game wondering if anything else could be called.

Are you a rules interpreter? If so, what call would you make? Thanks!

Mike

Big Slick Mon Jul 12, 2010 02:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountieSB (Post 685145)
It was a game in PA under NFHS rules. We didn't call an interpreter because it didn't affect the outcome of the game and we were satisfied with the original call. This was just talk we had after the game wondering if anything else could be called.

Are you a rules interpreter? If so, what call would you make? Thanks!

Mike

Mike, my first reaction to the video was "absolutely two outs." Then I watched it again, and started talking myself out of it, as you rarely see two outs with this type of interference. But I watched it a few more times (actually while discussing with another forum member), and I am leaning towards also calling the BR out (meaning I would need more information to call the second out).

I think you should run this by the rules interpreter in your district. I have heard he enjoys rule discussions (especially if there are refreshing, frosty adult beverages).

Steve M Mon Jul 12, 2010 02:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 685157)
Mike, my first reaction to the video was "absolutely two outs." Then I watched it again, and started talking myself out of it, as you rarely see two outs with this type of interference. But I watched it a few more times (actually while discussing with another forum member), and I am leaning towards also calling the BR out (meaning I would need more information to call the second out).

I think you should run this by the rules interpreter in your district. I have heard he enjoys rule discussions (especially if there are refreshing, frosty adult beverages).


We always see things more clearly with those refreshing, frosty adult beverages.

Big Slick Mon Jul 12, 2010 02:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve M (Post 685160)
We always see things more clearly with those refreshing, frosty adult beverages.

Steve, I don't think I said that the rules interpreter has better or clearer ruling when he is enjoying a "cold one"; I just know he likes to discuss rules and beverages. Wasn't this the same guy that provided you with post game refreshment (at least that's what I heard)?

Steve M Mon Jul 12, 2010 03:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 685162)
Steve, I don't think I said that the rules interpreter has better or clearer ruling when he is enjoying a "cold one"; I just know he likes to discuss rules and beverages. Wasn't this the same guy that provided you with post game refreshment (at least that's what I heard)?


Slick,
I didn't recognize the field, so I don't know who that interpreter is just yet.
Now you didn't say that we see more clearly in those discusion while having a cold one - I did. There's an awful lot of talking during those discussions, so I usually need one or two or more.
"Wasn't this the same guy that provided you with post game refreshment (at least that's what I heard)?" Could be - there have been a few who kindly shared. And it's always much appreciated.

CecilOne Mon Jul 12, 2010 03:06pm

After watching the video, the fielder apparently has the ball before the contact. The runner is therefore tagged out with the fielder knocked down in the process.
I don't see the "runner has to go poof" theory, so unless the runner was judged to do something intentional or malicious, no call but the runner out.

Q: Is she a retired runner as the knock down came after the tag?

MountieSB Mon Jul 12, 2010 04:10pm

Big Slick!
 
If you're who I think you are, then 1. You're my favorite rules interpeter, and 2. I DO know that you like a cold, frosty one (while discussing rules, of course!). How was the DII world series?

Mike

blue man Mon Jul 12, 2010 04:44pm

I have a double play on this one. R1 has the option to stop, go in front or behind 2b player. Not through her. R1 brought her arms up into her chest which tells me she knew there was going to be a collision.
The BR was only six steps out of the box when the collision took place. It looks to me like there was lots of time to turn the double.
I am not going to penalize the defense (only take one out) when the offense is clearly at fault.

Paul

IRISHMAFIA Mon Jul 12, 2010 05:11pm

Based solely on the video, I have a catch and tag out.

I see no interference unless there was another runner out there that the SS could have retired had the runner not crashed into her.

Dakota Mon Jul 12, 2010 05:20pm

The runner had plenty of time to go "poof"... i.e. avoid the fielder, since the runner was 5 running stride steps from the fielder as she was moving to catch the popup. She chose to plough into the fielder rather than run behind her.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Jul 12, 2010 05:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 685188)
The runner had plenty of time to go "poof"... i.e. avoid the fielder, since the runner was 5 running stride steps from the fielder as she was moving to catch the popup. She chose to plough into the fielder rather than run behind her.

Coaching issue. This is what happens when you direct players to do specific things instead of playing the game.

Don't watch the ball, just run to the base, Don't look at the runner, just throw the BR out at 1st, etc.

youngump Mon Jul 12, 2010 06:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 685187)
Based solely on the video, I have a catch and tag out.

I see no interference unless there was another runner out there that the SS could have retired had the runner not crashed into her.

Just to make sure I understand, you have no interference because the tag came before the collision, right? And then you may have interference depending solely on whether there was another play to be made and if there was you'd be taking the lead runner?

(Tangentially, I wish there were more of these posted to look at)
________
Avandia Lawsuit

IRISHMAFIA Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 685192)
Just to make sure I understand, you have no interference because the tag came before the collision, right? And then you may have interference depending solely on whether there was another play to be made and if there was you'd be taking the lead runner?

Okay, sounds right. Basically, if the batter is out on the catch and the runner out on the tag, what else is there with which to interfere other than another runner?

PSUchem Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 685222)
Okay, sounds right. Basically, if the batter is out on the catch and the runner out on the tag, what else is there with which to interfere other than another runner?

I think a lot of us (myself included, until I watched the video again) missed the fact that this is not a pop-up/fly ball. It was a hard chop near the plate.

Dakota Tue Jul 13, 2010 07:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUchem (Post 685224)
I think a lot of us (myself included, until I watched the video again) missed the fact that this is not a pop-up/fly ball. It was a hard chop near the plate.

Huh! Whaddayaknow.... I certainly missed that... :o

Big Slick Tue Jul 13, 2010 07:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountieSB (Post 685178)
If you're who I think you are, then 1. You're my favorite rules interpeter, and 2. I DO know that you like a cold, frosty one (while discussing rules, of course!). How was the DII world series?

Mike

Mike,
You are correct. DII was really great. We had good weather, a wonderful complex, a great crew and 13 really well played games. Wonderful experience all the way around.

argodad Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 685246)
Mike,
You are correct. DII was really great. We had good weather, a wonderful complex, a great crew and 13 really well played games. Wonderful experience all the way around.

How was Coach M from Valdosta? (He can be a whiner. Usually just loud enough for you to hear behind the plate.)

argodad Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 685245)
Huh! Whaddayaknow.... I certainly missed that... :o

Agree. I had to watch it in slo-mo.

Big Slick Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by argodad (Post 685266)
How was Coach M from Valdosta? (He can be a whiner. Usually just loud enough for you to hear behind the plate.)

He was an really good. All the coaches were. It was a very good tournament, a lot of good play. Too bad these players do not get the TV time, they really played their hearts out.

North Georgia was the big story, coming in at 50-0 and then leaving at 1-2.

MD Longhorn Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 685222)
Okay, sounds right. Basically, if the batter is out on the catch and the runner out on the tag, what else is there with which to interfere other than another runner?

???
Runner out on the tag, BR out on the interference.

PSUchem Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 685289)
???
Runner out on the tag, BR out on the interference.

By his response, I think Irish thought it was a flyball, too (and if it were the case, I would agree with him, as there were no other runners on base to call out).

MD Longhorn Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUchem (Post 685291)
By his response, I think Irish thought it was a flyball, too (and if it were the case, I would agree with him, as there were no other runners on base to call out).

AH. Got it.

IRISHMAFIA Tue Jul 13, 2010 05:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUchem (Post 685291)
By his response, I think Irish thought it was a flyball, too (and if it were the case, I would agree with him, as there were no other runners on base to call out).

Yep, I missed the ball on the ground. For that matter, no matter how many times I run it, I cannot see it hitting the ground, but that is on my side.

With this new information, I have an out on the tag. Cannot tell if there was the possibility of a play on another runner, but apparently the umpires did not think so.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1