The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 30, 2011, 10:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1
NFHS 8-6-18 "intent"

One of the first High School games of the season (raining since March 7th) and here we go...

No out- R1 at 2nd, R2 at 1st, B3 hits ball between F7 & F8- R1 rounds 3rd and scores when F8's throw home beats her, but the ball is knocked out of F2's glove/tag, and rolls 6' away.

You guessed it- here comes R2 to the plate while F2 & R1 are still tangled up at the plate. R1 has rolled on top of F2, who actually heaves R1 off her in an attempt to retrieve the ball and make a play on R2. R1 made no immediate or obvious attempt to clear the plate after scoring, but obviously did not intend on interfering with F2.

I am PU, and kill the play just as R2 approaches home (she does weave thru R1 & F2's legs to touch the plate) calling R2 out on R1's scored runner interference. BR3 ends up at 3rd, where BU thinks she belongs, but my opinion was BR3 should be put back at 1st, the last base obtained at the time of the throw home (she hadn't reached 2nd before the dead ball)
OC comes unglued saying R1 didn't try (intend) to hinder F2's attempt to stay with the play. The rule change has removed intent from the equation, leaving it to U's judgement whether or not interference occured. OC may have had a point last season, but not now?

Agree or disagree here? - Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 30, 2011, 11:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 117
As you say - there does not have to be intent for there to be interference by a retired runner. If, in your judgement, the retired runner interfered than you apply the appropriate penalty.

The runner that was left on would be placed on the last base she had touched at the time the interference occurred.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 31, 2011, 07:59am
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 391
I agree with Marvin. It's all up to judgment. However, I wouldn't be too quick to call interference in a case such as this. It's quite possible that you just have a wreck. Overall, sounds like a HTBT.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 31, 2011, 08:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,340
I initially also thought nothing more than just normal playing action. But, if situation were reversed, runner had not touched home yet, catcher lost ball in collision and was laying on top of runner trying to get to home plate, would we not have obstruction on the catcher?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 31, 2011, 08:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pace, FL
Posts: 653
Send a message via AIM to argodad
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncalblue View Post
BR3 ends up at 3rd, where BU thinks she belongs, but my opinion was BR3 should be put back at 1st, the last base obtained at the time of the throw home (she hadn't reached 2nd before the dead ball)
Your judgement of INT on R1 sounds reasonable. BR3 gets the last base touched at the time of the interference not at the time of the throw.
__________________
Larry
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 31, 2011, 08:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 306
I had this simular call three times this year already. I just calmly tell the not so calm coach that the retired (or already scored) runner interfered. One responded that yea she did, but that breaking up the double play is part of baseball, good thing we're playing softball.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 31, 2011, 09:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncalblue View Post
I am PU, and kill the play just as R2 approaches home (she does weave thru R1 & F2's legs to touch the plate) calling R2 out on R1's scored runner interference. BR3 ends up at 3rd, where BU thinks she belongs, but my opinion was BR3 should be put back at 1st, the last base obtained at the time of the throw home (she hadn't reached 2nd before the dead ball)
OC comes unglued saying R1 didn't try (intend) to hinder F2's attempt to stay with the play. The rule change has removed intent from the equation, leaving it to U's judgement whether or not interference occured. OC may have had a point last season, but not now?

Agree or disagree here? - Thanks
So, besides your partner's rule knowledge, I'm wondering about his judgment. A runner who hadn't gotten second and he thinks she "belongs" on third. If this had been obstruction near the plate and R2 had been the obstructed runner tagged out at home, an award of third would obviously not sound right.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 31, 2011, 11:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
I'm having a hard time picturing how R1 ended up on top of F2.

If R1 slid into home and F2's legs, shouldn't F2 be on top of R1? If this is the case, F2 should be able to get up and retrieve the ball, and I don't see interference here.

You stated that R1 had "had rolled on top of" F2.....to me, this doesn't sound like something that would normally happen on a play like this. From your description, I think this action qualifies as interference. HTBT for sure, but there's my $0.02

As to where to place the other runner, I think that has been answered.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 31, 2011, 12:00pm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKBUmp View Post
I initially also thought nothing more than just normal playing action. But, if situation were reversed, runner had not touched home yet, catcher lost ball in collision and was laying on top of runner trying to get to home plate, would we not have obstruction on the catcher?
I had been wondering the same thing. In my mind, it really comes down to who is making a proper softball play and who is not. I'm not sure I have enough information (and probably wouldn't without seeing it) from the OP. So in my mind, I see some distinct possibilities.

A sliding R1 is trying to score while F2 awaits with the ball in the glove. At this point, everybody is doing exactly what we would expect. Now, the ball comes loose and squirts a few feet away from F2. It's what happens at this point that requires our attention and judgment.

If (a) R1 touches the plate on the slide and resulting pileup leaves R1 on top of F2, that alone is not enough to determine RR Int, IMO. What has she done wrong? She was, and is, playing the game the proper way.

If (b) R1 is prevented from reaching the plate because of a good and legal block and subsequently F2 falls on top of R1, we again don't have either player doing anything "wrong." Both are making the expected softball plays.

Now, if I judge that R1 in (a) or F2 in (b) do something that shows evidence of no longer making a bona fide softball play, then my judgment is going to cause me to call RR Int (a) or OBS (b). For instance, if in (b) the catcher continues to lay on top of R1 while F1 retrieves the ball and tags R1, I've got OBS.

If we modify (a) just slightly where she doesn't touch the plate but winds up on top of F2, do we have INT on R1? I think I'd need further evidence before I could come up with INT in either situation. In other words, just because R1 was skilled enough to actually touch the plate while sliding does not constitute INT with all other things being equal.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 31, 2011, 12:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Gulf Coast of TX to Destin Fl
Posts: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncalblue View Post
One of the first High School games of the season (raining since March 7th) and here we go...

No out- R1 at 2nd, R2 at 1st, B3 hits ball between F7 & F8- R1 rounds 3rd and scores when F8's throw home beats her, but the ball is knocked out of F2's glove/tag, and rolls 6' away.

You guessed it- here comes R2 to the plate while F2 & R1 are still tangled up at the plate. R1 has rolled on top of F2, who actually heaves R1 off her in an attempt to retrieve the ball and make a play on R2. R1 made no immediate or obvious attempt to clear the plate after scoring, but obviously did not intend on interfering with F2.

I am PU, and kill the play just as R2 approaches home (she does weave thru R1 & F2's legs to touch the plate) calling R2 out on R1's scored runner interference. BR3 ends up at 3rd, where BU thinks she belongs, but my opinion was BR3 should be put back at 1st, the last base obtained at the time of the throw home (she hadn't reached 2nd before the dead ball)
OC comes unglued saying R1 didn't try (intend) to hinder F2's attempt to stay with the play. The rule change has removed intent from the equation, leaving it to U's judgement whether or not interference occured. OC may have had a point last season, but not now?

Agree or disagree here? - Thanks
If the interference occured while the BR was between 1st and 2nd, the BR should go back to 1st as you stated. If the interference occured after the BR had passed 2nd then that is where she had been placed. Not sure what your BU was thinking.......but the BR is only entitled to the base granted by the interference rule.

Joel
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Mar 31, 2011, 12:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 117
Speaking NFHS only:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue View Post
. . .

If (a) R1 touches the plate on the slide and resulting pileup leaves R1 on top of F2, that alone is not enough to determine RR Int, IMO. What has she done wrong? She was, and is, playing the game the proper way.
She has interfered with the defense making a play on another runner. The rule change this year clarifies that there does not have to intent. If a run scores because the runner has pinned the catcher, is that "right".

Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue View Post
. . .
If (b) R1 is prevented from reaching the plate because of a good and legal block and subsequently F2 falls on top of R1, we again don't have either player doing anything "wrong." Both are making the expected softball plays.
If the catcher is in possesion of the ball good for her. If the catcher drops the ball and the catcher prevents the runner from advancing the catcher has obstructed the runner. Again, no intent needed. If the pitcher picks up the ball and tags the runner that is pinned by the catcher is that "right".

And I am not confusing intent with "wrong". What is "wrong" is what violates the rules. No other criteria matter.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
intent, interference, nfhs

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obstruction/interference/"malicious" contact non-ruling (NFHS)... jcwells Baseball 7 Wed Jul 09, 2008 06:04pm
ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight pizanno Basketball 27 Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:08am
No "Intent" in interference DaveASA/FED Softball 14 Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:07pm
2007 NFHS Rules Changes - "Step and Reach" Dakota Softball 8 Mon Jul 10, 2006 02:46pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1