8U (Dixie Rules) situation: Bases loaded 1 out. Ground ball hit to SS. The runner sees the SS making the play, hesitates, and attempts to cut in front of the SS. The SS muffs the ball which rolls down her leg forward toward the runner. The SS moves forward to retrieve the ball causing contact with the runner. I realized this is a HTBT play but is the fielder protected throughout the play? I was a spectator at the game and disagreed with the ruling on the field (quietly in my own mind). How would you rule under your rules - ASA, NF, etc.?

Point one, 8U games should not be using umpires.

Two, I'm having a hard time visualizing that the runner cut in front of the SS as the ball was approaching, yet the ball hit the fielder, rolled down the leg and the runner was still in the vicinity for the ball to catch up to them.

We use umpires in our 6U games, keep score and have 4 pages of local league rules that make no sense.

I will try to explain the situation a little better. The runner on second (a 7 yr old) running toward third stops about two feet from the SS who is attempting to field a ground ball. When she sees the ball hit the SS's glove, she attempts to cut in front of the SS to proceed to third. At the same time, the ball hits the SS's glove then her chest rolling down the front of her body down her leg toward the catcher. The runner attempts to hop over the ball and collides with the SS who is now lunging toward the ball. The BU signals delay dead ball then points at the runner and signals an out call. He then calls time due to the SS being injured and places the B/R on second and the runner from 1st on third base.

I agree with Mike that umpires should not be used at these levels. This age group is basically in a learning process, and you see several things happen which probably shouldn't be called. The last thing that these girls need is over officiation in their game. They are out to simply learn some skills, but mostly just to have a good time.

However, from what you are saying, by the rule book, yes, interference could be supported here. However, I am curious as to why the B/R ended up on second and R2 ended up on third. If the umpire felt that the play warranted interference to the point that he called it, why would he reward the offensive team by advancing their runners. If I were making this call, I would have B/R at first and R2 at second.

Scott

Non-Dixie answer:
On interference, the runners can't advance and remain at the last base touched, unless forced. So the BR gets 1st and the runner from 1st gets second. Obviously, this age group gets umpires who are not ready for prime time.

I'm not sure what the BU thought he was doing, but it appears that he blew this play big time. As far as the interference call goes, that is a HTBT call, but with the SS "lunging" after a misplayed ball, I would have a tendancy NOT to call interference and possibly to call obstruction instead, after all, R1 gave F6 a chance to field the ball and she muffed it. R1 is not required to stand around forever waiting for F6 to secure the ball and tag her out. So, my ruling on the play would have been obstruction on F6, R1 to 3rd, R2 to 2nd and BR to 1st.

Nowm given that we accept the BU's interference as correct, why on earth did he award R2 3rd and the BR 2nd. There is no rule in any book that supports that ruling. You should have endeed up with the BR on 1st and R2 on 2nd, unless the BU ruled that R1 intentionally interfered with F6 in order to break up a double play. om wjocj case you have R1 out, the BR out, and R2 back on 1st, but given the fact that F6 muffed the original ground ball, that scenario is the least likely of the possibilities.

SamC

This is our first year playing in this league. I'm trying to convince the league to not keep score for the 6U league, concentrate on skill development, and use the coaches to "officiate" the game. We have some managers in the 6U that play to win, restrict the girls from throwing and make no changes to their lineups. They have one or two girls that basically try to chase every runner down.

All the 8U Dixie leagues in our town use at least one paid umpire. The newer and less experienced umpires usually work these games; however, the umpire that made the call has worked HS ball in the past. I can accept the runner interference call (judgement) but I disagreed with the resulting runner placement.

I quietly spoke with the umpires between innings to inquire about the call. He stated that the runner on first had passed second when the interference had occurred. I asked about the delayed dead ball call. He stated that obstruction and interference are both delayed dead ball calls.

I talked to the runner, my DD, and told her to run behind the fielder next time. She said that the coach told her that she was not allowed to go behind the fielder.

Of course, my DD's coaches also blamed the loss on bad officiating but forgot about the three girls tagged between 3rd and home on risky baserunning tactics. Twice to end the inning with the middle of the lineup batting and bases full.

It wa a frustrating night as a parent and a umpire observer.

[Edited by alabamabluezebra on May 20th, 2003 at 10:33 AM]

Ignoring the level of play issue (since I agree with a couple of the other posts that this level should not have umpires), the "rule of thumb" of a muffed play on a batted ball for continuing to protect the fielder is "a step and a reach" - if the ball is within a step and a reach, she is still protected, beyond that, the defense does not have unlimited freedom to chase the ball all over the infield expecting the runners to stay out of their way.

However, the umpire in this situation has serious confusion issues...
Delayed dead ball, followed by interference call, followed by calling the lead runner out and advancing the other runners 2 bases???? Yowee.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/eek2.gif

OK if "the runner on first had passed second when the interference had occurred. ", that runner still stays at 2nd, not 3rd. Just that she gets 2nd for having reached it, as opposed to being forced.

As to "the umpire that made the call has worked HS ball in the past", is this why it's "in the past" or is this just another proof the OJT is not enough?