When is the ball past the fielder?

[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