The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 10:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 139
Hypothetical

Watching a game yesterday and saw the following situation...

R1 on 2nd.
0 or 1 out
Left handed batter
Batter strikes out.
R1 steals third.
Batter walks toward dugout (3B side) crossing between catcher and 3rd.
Catcher holds the ball (doesn't make attempt to get R1).

A) Could interference have been called on batter (already out)?
B) Would C needed to have made a throw for interference to have been called?
C) What is the result if this is interference? R1 out? R1 back on 2nd? What if R1 started on third and had a lead? C still held the throw b/c of the batter.

I had no dog in this fight, just thought it was an interesting scenario.

BTW, I'm not a blue, just a parent who likes to know the rules (although I'm not always successful)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 11:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 350
NCAA rules:

A) Yes
B) No. If batter movement is judged to be intentional to protect runner, you have a double play.
C) See B. Expect a conversation from the OC. Runner at third would be more difficult to sell especially without a throw and double especially if she didn't attempt to go home.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 11:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by derwil View Post
NCAA rules:

A) Yes
B) No. If batter movement is judged to be intentional to protect runner, you have a double play.
C) See B. Expect a conversation from the OC. Runner at third would be more difficult to sell especially without a throw and double especially if she didn't attempt to go home.
The fact that F2 didn't attempt a play (whether she actually got a throw off or not) negates INT. Not sure what whether the runner did/didn't attempt to go home has to do with anything. Had F2 attempted a throw to 3rd, R1 should be called out for the batter's interference after striking out. Intent has nothing to do with determining INT in this case. Conversation with OC will be brief.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 11:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 859
ASA:
A retired batter can be called for INT if F2 makes an attempt and the retired batter hinders.
Penalty is the runner closest to home is Out.
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 01:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 139
For what it's worth, DC asked C why she didn't throw and C answered "she was in my way". Now, granted this was 10U, and probably one of those things that you'll only rarely see, so I understood why C didn't attempt the play, and why PU didn't call anything. I was just curious what would have happened if...

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 01:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamG View Post
For what it's worth, DC asked C why she didn't throw and C answered "she was in my way". Now, granted this was 10U, and probably one of those things that you'll only rarely see, so I understood why C didn't attempt the play, and why PU didn't call anything. I was just curious what would have happened if...

Thanks
So sorry, coach; I cannot rule on a hypothetical play that wasn't attempted, nor even begin to make decisions based on what your player MAY have been thinking. We rule on plays and attempted plays; we didn't have either here. For what it is worth, I suggest you use this as a learning/teaching moment with your players; to have interference, there must be a play being attempted.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 02:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 350
In 6.12 of the CCA manual, pg 100 (I only have 2009 on me right now), it states that "if a runner is coming toward a defensive player, a throw is not required to have an interference call". Upon re-reading the OP I agree that there shouldn't be a DP because it states that no play was being made. If a play was being made (catcher rises and initiates a throwing motion) and a throw was not attempted because of the retired batter is in the way, I'm probably going to ring her up.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 02:34pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamG View Post
For what it's worth, DC asked C why she didn't throw and C answered "she was in my way". Now, granted this was 10U, and probably one of those things that you'll only rarely see, so I understood why C didn't attempt the play, and why PU didn't call anything. I was just curious what would have happened if...

Thanks
Well, PU didn't call anything because there was nothing to call. Doesn't matter how old. Had there been a play, and retired batter had ACTUALLY (not just hypothetically) interfered with that play, he could be called out for interference (intent is irrelevant here).
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 02:39pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by derwil View Post
In 6.12 of the CCA manual, pg 100 (I only have 2009 on me right now), it states that "if a runner is coming toward a defensive player, a throw is not required to have an interference call". Upon re-reading the OP I agree that there shouldn't be a DP because it states that no play was being made. If a play was being made (catcher rises and initiates a throwing motion) and a throw was not attempted because of the retired batter is in the way, I'm probably going to ring her up.
Bad call blue. Read the rest of your sitch. If you still think it's applicable to OP, quote it here - I bet you see why it's not while you type it.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 05:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamG View Post
Watching a game yesterday and saw the following situation...

R1 on 2nd.
0 or 1 out
Left handed batter
Batter strikes out.
R1 steals third.
Batter walks toward dugout (3B side) crossing between catcher and 3rd.
Catcher holds the ball (doesn't make attempt to get R1).

A) Could interference have been called on batter (already out)?
B) Would C needed to have made a throw for interference to have been called?
C) What is the result if this is interference? R1 out? R1 back on 2nd? What if R1 started on third and had a lead? C still held the throw b/c of the batter.

I had no dog in this fight, just thought it was an interesting scenario.

BTW, I'm not a blue, just a parent who likes to know the rules (although I'm not always successful)
Speaking ASA

A & B) If the umpire believed the retired player interfered with the catcher's opportunity to get an out, yes. HOWEVER, the umpire shouldn't be expected to be a mind reader. I'm going to use a term I don't like to use often, but I think it works here. The catcher doesn't have to make a throw, but at least come up with a softball move to show the umpire she was not just sitting on the ball.

C) Runner closest to home is declared out.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 06:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 350
Agreed w/ Irish...maybe I wasn't clear but Irish summed up what I was meaning to say. Thanks Irish.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 06:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
So sorry, coach; I cannot rule on a hypothetical play that wasn't attempted, nor even begin to make decisions based on what your player MAY have been thinking. We rule on plays and attempted plays; we didn't have either here. For what it is worth, I suggest you use this as a learning/teaching moment with your players; to have interference, there must be a play being attempted.
If you're referring to me, I'm not a coach. I was a spectator watching the game waiting for another one. I had no relation to this game. I thought at the time the C should have made the throw and if she had, there could have been interference. I wasn't positive, so I thought I'd ask here.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2011, 07:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central, FL
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamG View Post
(snip) I wasn't positive, so I thought I'd ask here.
Smart Move!!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 05, 2011, 09:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 359
Just to be clear...

Yes, the retired batter walking in front of F2 while a runner advances could become interference. But the retired batter's actions must actually interfere somehow with an actual play. The mere act of crossing in front of F2 does not constitute interference.

No there does not need to be a throw but there has to be some type of effort by the defense to make a play on the advancing runner which the retired batter interferes with to call interference. This could be F2 moving toward the runner with the ball and being hindered by the retired batter, not necessisarily a throw.

But if the batter strikes out, the runner from 2B runs, and F2 just stands there holding the ball while the retired batter returns to her team area by passing in front of F2 I have nothing.

I am speaking ASA and NFHS. Gotta think NCAA is the same.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 07, 2011, 11:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 859
Very common. Teams run invitationals and friendlies as fundraisers.
No real conflict of interest.
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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
Another hypothetical Larry1953 Baseball 4 Sat Jun 18, 2011 09:37pm
backcourt hypothetical rsl Basketball 15 Thu Feb 10, 2011 04:50pm
Hypothetical + Foul shutupneff Basketball 2 Mon Feb 01, 2010 06:35am
Hypothetical Becomes Reality 26 Year Gap Basketball 1 Thu Jan 28, 2010 06:48pm
How would this hypothetical be sorted out? bas2456 Basketball 26 Wed Mar 04, 2009 04:06pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1