Mens slow pitch softball, church 'D' level. Runners on first and second. Batter hits a ground ball to third base. Thirdbaseman misplays the ball, "boots it". While trying to recover the ball, the and runner 2, who is moving toward third, collide. If the ball had been fielded cleanly, IMO, no contact would have been made. I made a "no call" and the runner was eventualy tagged out as he and the thirdbaseman scrambled around on the ground. The home plate umpire said that the runner should have been out for interfearance, but that he did not see the third baseman boot the ball. We have a 50/50 split in our association about the right call. Can anyone shed some light on this?

When you have a collision, you've got something. From your description, I suspect that I'd have had obstruction on the fielder which would have protected the runner. The fielder had his chance, muffed it, and the ball went far enough away that the fielder had to chase it down - and that caused a collision with the runner. With any obstruction/interference, you've got to have seen the actual play to be sure.

Steve M

In making my decision on obstruction/interference in cases such as this, I use the guideline that the defensive player is given "a step and a reach".

If the misplayed ball only causes the defensive player to move one step and then reach for the ball, he is still protected while fielding the batted ball.

If the defensive player has to move more than the step and a reach, the burden is upon him to avoid obstructing the runner.

(This is a baseball interp, but it transfers well to softball and gives you a consistent guideline.)

Roger Greene

A factor that is not clear is whether F5 "trying to recover the ball" means he moved or just stayed in place getting it off the ground. If he moved, then it probably was obstruction. If he didn't move, meaning he was where the runner should have avoided him in the first place, it might be interference. I guess that's similar to what Roger siad, without the measurement. As usual, YHTBT, but my first instinct was obstruction, especially after some other recent discussons on this forum.
The PU comment is meaningless because if he didn't see the boot, he couldn't know what F5 was doing after it. Also, analyzing the "50/50 split in our association" is dependent on why, so no comment.

I don't agree that when "you have a collision, you've got something". There are non-call collisions, especially when the ball and both players arrive at the same time.

If we're talking about a tag play, then you're correct, collisions are often nothing more than a wreck. But when a fielder going after a batted ball or a muffed ball and a runner have a collision, that's something - just about all the time. With the batted or muffed ball collision, one player has the right to be there and the other must yield.

In the Busher's play, the words "boots" and "scrambled" lead me to picture this as being more than a "step and a reach". And that is the same guideline that I use - I think most of us use that or something that means pretty much the same thing.

Busher - I missed that this was your first post. Welcome aboard.

Steve M

[Edited by Steve M on May 10th, 2003 at 08:20 AM]

First off, welcome to the board.

Too many things I would have to see prior to ruling on this play. Did F5 still have the opportunity to make an out if there was no collision? Was R1 attempting to avoid the interference when the fielder goes for the ball? Was this action in front of or behind the original point of the fielder's contact with the ball? Remember, the ball retains the status of "batted ball" or "thrown ball" until someone actually fields or catches that ball or it enters DBT.

There is nothing in the rules about the rules being suspended just because someone did not take advantage of an initial opportunity without something else occuring.

Sounds like you all have this pretty well nailed, so just a comment or two about the comments...

The ball & runner arriving at the same time being a no-call applies to a thrown ball, not a batted ball. A collision between a runner legally running the bases and a fielder with a batted ball in play is always (well, 99% of the time is pretty close to always) something. If the fielder is protected, it is interference. Otherwise, it is obstruction. The fielder can be protected because he is attempting to field the batted ball, or because he still has a chance to make an out (ASA) on a deflected batted ball.

The no-call could occur if you judge neither player had a reasonable chance to avoid the collision due to the deflection - IOW, players are not required to go "poof."

And, Busher, welcome! http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/bigwave.gif

Please forgive me for leaving out the word "thrown". Just din't want anyone agreeing to always on a T/F test.