When is the ball past the fielder?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue

The ball actually has to pass and infielder......in Rachel's OP.....it did not.

Joel

Which goes back to the OP Q (and mine) of how to define "passes", and how close to the "passed" fielder the ball has to be.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Which goes back to the OP Q (and mine) of how to define "passes", and how close to the "passed" fielder the ball has to be.

Passed to me means "Through or by".....the ball actually has to pass somebody...........not by some imaginary line on the infield.....hell.....if we used that definition.....almost no batted ball that hits a runner off the base could be considered interference using the geometry theory..........

Joel

[Tru_in_Blu]

Without meaning to hijack this "string", let's suppose the infield puts on a shift for a left handed batter. F5 still plays close to third base. F3, F4, F6 now all on the right side of the infield.

On the pitch, runner from second attempts a steal of third. Batter hits the ball to where F6 would normally play and the ball strikes the runner.

Has the ball passed an infielder? Out or play on?

[ronald]

from my understandingofthe play, if i am the 3rd baseman and am playing in front of 3rdbase and the ball hits the runner one foot off of second base, how has that ball not passed me?

[tcannizzo]

To me, a ball passing an infielder and hitting a runner means that the ball, the infielder(s) and runner are on the same side of the infield.

If F5 is playing 20 ft from HP and the ball is hit to the right side, I cannot consider the ball passing F5.

[Rachel]

I think that we are getting away from the point here. I don't think anyone would talk about F3 and F5 as "past the infielder" in this situation.

This is a classic "intent of the rule" thought. Is there a play to be made to get an out in the situation (ASA)?

It was pretty fun to listen to two of the best softball officiating minds in the nation argue this point. In the end neither one would concede the point to the other. The rule book (ASA) does not allow the string theory (line between F6 and F4) but perhaps it should.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Rachel

I think that we are getting away from the point here. I don't think anyone would talk about F3 and F5 as "past the infielder" in this situation.

This is a classic "intent of the rule" thought. Is there a play to be made to get an out in the situation (ASA)?

It was pretty fun to listen to two of the best softball officiating minds in the nation argue this point. In the end neither one would concede the point to the other. The rule book (ASA) does not allow the string theory (line between F6 and F4) but perhaps it should.

Just curious....who were the two softball officiating minds and what were there respective positions on this situation? PM me if you don't want to post on the open forum.

[CecilOne]

OK, let's set the geometry aside for now.

The point of the rule is that the runner is out because being hit with the ball presumably interfered with a fielder being able to field the ball to make a play. That is why the second clause is about a second fielder having a chance to make a play.

So, looking at it that way, if the ball hits the runner and there is no fielder near the original path of the ball behind the runner, then the intent of the rule is met with the runner not being out.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Andy

Just curious....who were the two softball officiating minds and what were there respective positions on this situation? PM me if you don't want to post on the open forum.

Gee, I'd like to know, too!

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by Rachel

I think that we are getting away from the point here. I don't think anyone would talk about F3 and F5 as "past the infielder" in this situation.

This is a classic "intent of the rule" thought. Is there a play to be made to get an out in the situation (ASA)?

It was pretty fun to listen to two of the best softball officiating minds in the nation argue this point. In the end neither one would concede the point to the other. The rule book (ASA) does not allow the string theory (line between F6 and F4) but perhaps it should.

Thank you to Rachel for getting this back on track. I could also argue either side of the point in ASA......but I believe that the way the rule is written an out must be called here.

I take it by Mike's silence that there is some dissension in the ASA ranks on whether an out should be called in this situation or not.

As to my opinion.....I believe an out should be called........not that it means anything.........

Joel

ps....Rachel.....you are one of the best minds in the country......what is your take on this?

I would also like to hear from AtlSteve and others!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue

Thank you to Rachel for getting this back on track. I could also argue either side of the point in ASA......but I believe that the way the rule is written an out must be called here.

I take it by Mike's silence that there is some dissension in the ASA ranks on whether an out should be called in this situation or not.

As to my opinion.....I believe an out should be called........not that it means anything.........

Joel

ps....Rachel.....you are one of the best minds in the country......what is your take on this?

I would also like to hear from AtlSteve and others!

I appreciate you asking, although I am pretty sure I am not one of those Rachel referred to. But I was at the same place, albeit not part of this discussion. I would guess the ones Rachel is referring to comes from the following Colorado Fireworks list: Emily A, Donna V, Willie N, Smokey E, Steve A, Kevin D, Dave N. Pretty great list, and I enjoyed listening to them on any number of topics.

I am going to disagree with something Andy said, and that, to me, is the key point. If we can say that a position behind the line between two defensive players is "behind" when relating to umpire interference, then that precedent has to also relate to runner interference. Behind is behind, not behind is not behind; there can't (shouldn't) be different interpretations based on who/what you are!!

And I agree with Rachel when she goes back to the intent of the rule (and definition of interference) that someone be disadvantaged for there to be a call. That is the basic difference with baseball; in baseball, if the ball contacts a runner, it is always interference, NO MATTER WHERE the defense is playing, in softball, it is meant to only be inteference if the contact stops the defense from making an apparent play. I know calling interference always is the easiest call to sell on this play (because of baseball); but it isn't always the right call in softball.

Still missed out on the conversation Rachel references; but would have loved to have been a fly on that wall.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I appreciate you asking, although I am pretty sure I am not one of those Rachel referred to. But I was at the same place, albeit not part of this discussion. I would guess the ones Rachel is referring to comes from the following Colorado Fireworks list: Emily A, Donna V, Willie N, Smokey E, Steve A, Kevin D, Dave N. Pretty great list, and I enjoyed listening to them on any number of topics.

I am going to disagree with something Andy said, and that, to me, is the key point. If we can say that a position behind the line between two defensive players is "behind" when relating to umpire interference, then that precedent has to also relate to runner interference. Behind is behind, not behind is not behind; there can't (shouldn't) be different interpretations based on who/what you are!!

And I agree with Rachel when she goes back to the intent of the rule (and definition of interference) that someone be disadvantaged for there to be a call. That is the basic difference with baseball; in baseball, if the ball contacts a runner, it is always interference, NO MATTER WHERE the defense is playing, in softball, it is meant to only be inteference if the contact stops the defense from making an apparent play. I know calling interference always is the easiest call to sell on this play (because of baseball); but it isn't always the right call in softball.

Still missed out on the conversation Rachel references; but would have loved to have been a fly on that wall.

Thank you Steve for your input. I am looking at this like a BR interference on a DK3.......ASA allows for the batter to unintentionlly interfere where NFHS has no such language......you either contacted the ball or you didn't.

As noted.......I could argue on either side of this one.......but my personal opinion is that in Rachel's OP......it is interference.

Never made it up to the Firecracker.....although an umpire buddy (and my mechanic) has been several times as a coach.....never had anything but good things to say (other than logistics).......

Thanks again for your input....

Joel

[DaveASA/FED]

I have been sitting back reading on this one (not right to say listening) the issue I have is if R1 leads off 2B and the ball is one step behind them just to the 3B side of the base and R1 and the SS collide and we judge there is no chance for the SS to have made a play on the ball we have no INT, in fact we would have OBS. BUT if that runner is slower to get off the base and it happens to hit them just off the base and the SS in the same situation (IMJ had no play on the ball) we have an out?? I know that's what the rule says, barring this discussion we are having about when the runner is behind the fielders, but that just doesn't seem fair. And before anyone says it I know life isn't fair but the rules are kinda sorta suppose to help make the game fair

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Rachel

This is a classic "intent of the rule" thought. Is there a play to be made to get an out in the situation (ASA)?

Does what I said (Yesterday 12:16pm) fit with your point here?

[IRISHMAFIA]

First, let's address the baseball side of this discussion. Baseball does not dictate where a runner must be at the time of the pitch, softball does. Baseball runners are 50% farther away from the batter than softball. But you cannot have a rule that is only effective within so many feet of a base, so it has to apply everywhere.

AFA the "string" theory, that would be easy to see in the FP game, however, in the SP game, it would be a rarity that the runner on 2B would be behind the "string" especially in a 5-man infield.

I think it is something you will know when you see it and I'm not really looking for a string.

However, you cannot lose focus if you have a short or charging OF that undoubted has a play and you may still have an INT situation.