When is the ball past the fielder?
 

R1 on 2nd base. The SS and 2nd baseman are playing normal playing depth a step or two behind the baseline, but if you draw a line between them that line is about 7-8' in front of 2nd base. (I hope this is a good visualization)

A 2 hop screamer is hit up the middle and R1 is hit with the ball a step off of 2nd. There was no way either the SS or 2nd baseman were going to get to the ball.

Do we have an out?

I don't have an out.

Disagree.

The theory of using the line between two fielders is, to the best of my knowledge, only used for determining if an umpire was hit by a batted ball before it passed a fielder. It has no bearing on a runner being hit.

The interference rule regarding a runner being hit by a fair batted ball (8-7-K) makes no allowance for a fielder being able to make a play, only that the ball has not passed a fielder, excluding the pitcher.

This play is probably HTBT, but as I visualise it from the OP, I've got interference and an out.

Who was interferred with?

It does not matter......the ball had not passed an infielder....

See ASA 8-7 K

K. When a runner is struck with a fair untouched batted ball while not in contact with a base and before it passes another infielder excluding the pitcher, or if it passes an infielder and another fielder has an opportunity to make an out.

The rule does not stipulate anything other than this. ASA has never subscribed to the "String Theory" to my knowledge.

Also see RS33.

Joel

It looks like the OP question is more about geometry than rule. As described, the fielders are behind the "base line", but possibly closer to HP than 2nd base. The line between does not matter, but the distance from HP might.

The OP Q asks how to define "passes". A runner on 2nd is further from HP than F3 and F5, so "past" them. If F4 & F6 are playing inside the base line, (as if expecting a bunt), the runner on 2nd is "past" them. All that is based on distance from HP and it is geometrically possible to be outside the base line and be closer to HP than 2nd base.

I think that determines the rule application unless there is an interp which says anything about how close to the "passed" fielder the ball has to be.

Exactly Cecil.

F5 is probably less than 60' from HP and R1 is probably closer to 80'. Did it pass an infielder? Depends on your perspective.

I think we need to make a decision as to whether or not interfence actually occurred and not just read the black and white rule.

84 ft 10 in to center of 2nd :)

But who's counting?:rolleyes:

If R1 were standing in the center of second, we'd probably be having a different discussion. :D

I was assuming she moved a little bit. ;)

I have no out for the op. the ball has passed an imaginary line drawn from where the 1b and 3rd baseman normally stand in fp.

I did not see a smiley face.....but hope you are joking.

ASA does not recognize any sort of "String" theory.

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

The ball is dead and the runner is out. Yes......this is going by the black and white of the rule. If ASA wants me to judge anything else, they can create a case play or interpretation in the UM.

Joel

It is actually 84' 10 and 1/4" :cool:

Joel

again I say, But who's counting":D

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Gee, I'd like to know, too!:D

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.........:rolleyes:

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.

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

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

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

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.

Cecil:

Your tag line says that we cannot invent rulings to fit our opinions. The ASA book does not allow us to call "play on". As much as it should be no interference the book doesn't let us call that.

The situation doesn't meet both of the criteria.

My personal opinion is that it should not be interference. BUT I would have to go with an out as I would be overruled in a protest.

This is good discussion.

Lucky me. I had this happen to me last evening. String or other conspiracy theories aside, I called an out.

Runners on first and second, 1 out. Batter hits a hard grounder past the pitcher on the SS side of second base. Runner attempted to jump over the ball which just clipped the heel on one of her shoes. The ball continued on into center field without any noticeable deflection.

I called dead ball and the runner out. This call was made more by ear than by sight. I only had a chance to take a step or two towards 2B, saw the jump and heard an audible click.

F6 or F4 had no prayer of making a play on this ball, but they were playing on the cut of the infield - very deep. Since no one saw the ball deflect or the runner react from being hit, the O-team wasn't too happy. Walking back to "B" after explaining the call to coach at third base, F4 said "good call, blue", but, since it was in their favor, she could have said it even if I kicked the call.

BTW, women's slow pitch game.

Or, kicked the ball ! ;)

Here's one I've not seen before. I was watching this game awaiting next game. Women's slow pitch, runners on first and third, one out. Infielders playing deep.

Batter hits a line drive that hits the third base bag on the fly. When the ball was hit, the runner moved inside the diamond to avoid being hit and took a step or two toward home. The bases on this field are the rubber type that set in recessed recepticle in the ground. The ball caromed off the base and reversed direction and hit the runner off third base. When the runner was contacted with the ball, she was in fair territory.

The call was an out for interference. Batter was awarded first base and the runner who was at first moved up to second.

I agreed with the call and after the game discussed it with both umps. We brought up if the call would have been different if the runner had been in foul territory after the richochet. I'm thinking it wouldn't have mattered because one the ball hit the base it was a fair ball no matter what direction it bounced.

Probably won't see that play again. Anyone have a different call than what was made?

Agree with the interference call. Kind of a bad break for the runner, but the game is full of plays that hinge on unlucky bounces.

If the runner had been hit by this fair batted ball while she was over foul territory, she may not have been out. She would only be out if the contact with the ball prevented an out from being made. (ASA 8-8-E)