Batter/Runer Interference

[Andy]

A fellow blue and I had a discussion on a play in his game on Saturday. Rec league, 14u, ASA rules.

The play: Less than two outs, 1st base unoccupied, catcher fails to catch strike three. BR takes off for first, catcher throws over F3's head and into right field. My buddy, who is working alone, calls the BR out for interference. His explanation is that she was running inside the foul line and affected the catchers throw to first base.

I believe that this was an incorrect interpretation of 8-2-E. The rule states that the BR cannot interfere with the fielder taking the throw. The rule does not mention the fielder making the throw. I contend that because F3 could not have caught the ball, no interference should be called. Had the throw hit the BR or had she blocked the view of F3 on a throw F3 had a chance to catch, then the interference call is appropriate.

What do you all think?

[Roger Greene]

Andy,
I agree with your interp.

Roger Greene

[gsf23]

I would have also called the runner out for interference in that situation also. To me it is the same situation as a runner going into second base standing up, they are interfering with the opportunity to make the throw. If you don't call that at first, then you can't call it at second either. I don't do much softball, but isn't there a running lane on the way to first that a runner is supposed to use.

[bluezebra]

Originally posted by gsf23
I would have also called the runner out for interference in that situation also. To me it is the same situation as a runner going into second base standing up, they are interfering with the opportunity to make the throw. If you don't call that at first, then you can't call it at second either. I don't do much softball, but isn't there a running lane on the way to first that a runner is supposed to use.

There's a running lane in all baseball and softball. If the B/R is running outside the lane, he/she is interfering with the fielder making the catch, not the throw.

Of course F3 cannot catch a ball thrown over her/his head, because the B/R caused the high throw. By Andy's interp, F2 should drill the B/R to get the interference call. That's not the intent of the rule.

Bob

[gsf23]

BlueZebra

That's why that needs to be called so the runner isn't drilled in the head on a throw next time.

[SamNVa]

There is no need for a catcher to drill anyone in the head to make a quality throw down to 1st base. All the chatcher has to do is take one step to the side to open up a clear lane to throw the ball. If they choose to try to throw the ball over the batter instead and end up throwing the ball away, then that's their choice and not the batter's fault. the BR can only interfere with the fielder making the catch at first base, not the catcher making the throw. I played catcher for almost 10 years up through HS and some intramurals in college, and I never had to plunk a runner in the back in order to throw them out regardless of where they chose to run.

SamC

[gsf23]

Well, to give an accurate account of what you would do in that situtaion, you need to define what is un-catchable. A lot of these situations I read here, I think you need to be there to actually see what is happening to make a ruling. The example it says the ball was thrown over f3's head. How high over? Was it uncatchable by that first baseman or would it have been uncatchable by any first baseman? That's umpire judgement and is going to vary person to person.

So if the umpire had said that BR is out for interference because they blocked the first base view and they weren't able to react properly, then that reasoning would have been alright, assuming you think the ball could have been caught.

[greymule]

No interference on the play you described. There has to be a quality throw. The possibility that the presence of the batter-runner outside the lane caused the bad throw is not considered. Without a reasonable throw, you don't call interference even if the ball hits the runner. Example: bunt two-thirds of the way to the mound, F1 picks up the ball and fires it 15 feet short of 1B, and it hits the batter-runner running outside the lane. Neither F3 nor anyone else had a chance to catch the ball. No interference.

[kellerumps]

Sorry, I don't have a ASA Rulebook Handy only my NCAA Rulebook. For the most part, they are the same.

It basically says that a basepath is defined as a direct line between the two bases. The runner shall be given 3 feet either way. The runner may run out of the basepath to avoid interfering with a fielder, the ball, or during her last stride to touch a base 165-166 Section 23. Further, the BR can only be cited for interference on the catch not the throw.

Nowhere "Catchability" mentioned.

A good catcher will notify 1st base by yelling "Inside" or "Outside" depending on the location of the ball and which "throwing lane" they are going to use.

If the catcher decides to throw-over the runner, then my partners better be getting ready for a play at 2nd because the ball is going into the outfield.

In this case, I believe that the rule was mis-applied.

[Dakota]

I agree with those who say that running lane interference is with the fielder taking the throw, not the one making the throw.

There needs to be a play to interfere with - hence the requirement for a quality throw.

Did the runner's position block F3 from seeing the ball and hence timing a stretch / jump to field the throw (interference) or was the throw unplayable (not interference)?

However, I wouldn't complain too much to any partner who made the call as Andy's did - the runner shoulda been in the lane. If she had been, there would have been no call to discuss!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Andy
A fellow blue and I had a discussion on a play in his game on Saturday. Rec league, 14u, ASA rules.

The play: Less than two outs, 1st base unoccupied, catcher fails to catch strike three. BR takes off for first, catcher throws over F3's head and into right field. My buddy, who is working alone, calls the BR out for interference. His explanation is that she was running inside the foul line and affected the catchers throw to first base.

I believe that this was an incorrect interpretation of 8-2-E. The rule states that the BR cannot interfere with the fielder taking the throw. The rule does not mention the fielder making the throw. I contend that because F3 could not have caught the ball, no interference should be called. Had the throw hit the BR or had she blocked the view of F3 on a throw F3 had a chance to catch, then the interference call is appropriate.

What do you all think?

A. There is no mention of a running lane violation which would only apply if the BR was already half-way to 1B at the time of the throw. This rule affects ONLY the defenders ability to receive the throw at 1B.

B. There is no rule restricting any place or manner in which a BR may advance to 1B with the exception of the rule above, which involves interfering with a throw. Assuming the most likely position for the BR (back to the plate), the runner cannot be ruled out unless she intentionally did something to interfere with the throw.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by gsf23


To me it is the same situation as a runner going into second base standing up, they are interfering with the opportunity to make the throw. If you don't call that at first, then you can't call it at second either. I don't do much softball, but isn't there a running lane on the way to first that a runner is supposed to use.

Speaking ASA, there is no such rule as you note above at any base. This would kill your argument.

Any interference call involving a thrown ball is required, by rule, to be intentional with the exception of the running lane violation which is only in place the last half the distance from the plate to 1B.

[whiskers_ump]

For whatever it is worth,

I agree Andy, misinterpretation of rule. No interference in
your play.


glen

[whiskers_ump]

gsf23,

Suppose the throw was low - BR slides into 1B and ball hits
her. Would that be interference?


glen

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Suppose the throw was low - BR slides into 1B and ball hits
her. Would that be interference?


glen

If the BR interfered with F3 receiving the throw........yes..............grin

My dos centavos...................

I don't have interference in the case that Andy mentioned..........

For there to be interference............

1. There has to be a throw............

2. It has to be a throw that F3 has a reasonable chance to field..........

3. The BR has to actually interfere with F3's ability to receive that throw..........

Joel