Rule Interpretations

[WestMichBlue]

Would you feel justified in taking one Ruling Body's interpretations (ie. ASA) and applying it in a game ruled by another organization (ie. NFHS) if the other does not have a clear interpretation. My question concerns interference on a batted ball vs interference on a deflected batted ball.

Situation: Saturday's H.S. District Semi-Final game. R1 on 2B, hot shot at F1, ball off her glove and rolls behind her. F6 goes for deflected ball and collides with R1 going to 3B. I quickly ruled out interference, thought about obstruction, and then decided to let it go. Defensive coach went ballistic, wanted to know why I wouldn't call interference. I replied that "on any initial hit I would have interference if the fielder was denied the opportunity to make a play. But on a deflected ball I would only have interference if the fielder was denied the opportunity to make an out. In my judgement his player has no chance to throw the B-R out; she would have reached 1B before F6 even had the ball.

This was based on using ASA POE 32 which differentiates between making a play, and making an out. NFHS rules only consider interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball and the case book has no offering.

Do you agree with my call? Or, because it was an NFHS game and it was a batted ball (deflected or not) that interference should have been called?

WMB

BTW - Same team on defense, top of the 7th, protecting a 4 run lead, R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, Batter hits soft blooper just over 2B. F6 playing in, sprints out towards ball and collides with R1. "Dead ball, runner out for interference!" This time no one complained. But as we headed off the field, PU said that he wasn't sure about the call; he didn't think F6 had a chance to catch the ball. Told him it didn't matter, she didn't have a chance to make a play. Not for me to judge whether or not she coulda, woulda, shoulda caught the ball.

[BigUmpJohn]

This is coming from a rookie. JMHO, but, if you are officiating for a certain organization, like the NFHS, then shouldn't you go by their rules? If the NFHS rules only consider interference with a fair batted ball and there appears to be interference on a fair batted ball (as you said deflected or not), then isn't it interference?

I'm scratching my head because is there any point when common sense should be used, too? Once again... only a rookie here. I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but I'm trying.

[WestMichBlue]

"then shouldn't you go by their rules?"

We are not talking rules here, Big John. We are talking interpretation of the rules. ASA 8.2.F has almost the identical wording to NFHS (fielding a batted ball). But ASA offers a more detailed explanation in POE 32, while the NFHS Case Book does not.

That was my dilemma on the field, but in a fraction of a second I saw the ball deflected and knew that I wasn't going to call interference. I remembered a discussion about this call on this board within the last few weeks, and, I believe, an opinion rendered by Mike Rowe.

But that was an ASA viewpoint, and Saturday night, when I tried to justify my call, I could not find support in the NFHS books.

WMB

[Steve M]

One of the things I tell my Fed chapter is that ASA is the national governing body of softball. So, when Fed does not cover something and ASA does, you are justified in using the ASA ruling.

BigJohn - A long time agom I grerw up in the south hills area. Where in the 'burgh are you?

Steve M

[Dakota]

I disagree we are talking about mere interpretation. The reason is that ASA has a specific rule (8-7J.5) dealing with the deflected batted ball. NFHS only has the rule dealing with interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

So, this is not just taking the ASA POE on an indentically or similarly worded rule. NFHS re-wrote their rule 8 (2 years ago, I think) to specifically mirror the ASA rule, therefore one could assume that any difference are intentional, not just a case of being incomplete, inexact, or vague.

ASA 8-7J.5 doesn't just add the requirement that the fielder have an opportunity to make an out (as opposed to a play), it also addes the requirement that the interference must be intentional by the runner. On other words, it effectively removes the fielder's protection once the ball is deflected unless the runner does something intentional.

Why did NFHS not include 8-7J.5 when they re-wrote their rule 8 (they did include ASA 8-7J.1-4)?

Is it possible that it was because they did not like ASA 8-7J.5 and wanted to keep the fielder's protection intact on a deflected batted ball.

[BigUmpJohn]

WMB, oops, guess I should read a little more in depth before I type. I thought it was just a discussion on the rules. Steve M, I'm from West Mifflin, but only those from the 'Burgh know where that's at, so I use Pittsburgh.

[WestMichBlue]

"ASA 8-7J.5 doesn't just add the requirement that the fielder have an opportunity to make an out (as opposed to a play), it also addes the requirement that the interference must be intentional by the runner. On other words, it effectively removes the fielder's protection once the ball is deflected unless the runner does something intentional."

OK - now explain POE 32 A.3.b "It is interference if the batted ball ricochets off one diffensive (sic) player and any player has the opportunity to make an out." Doesn't say "intentional."

In my game I did not believe F6 could get that runner at first on the deflected ball, so no interference. But you are saying "forget that judgement, no interference because interference was not deliberate." Lets change the play. Batted ball ricochets off the pitcher in the air towards F4. As she reached out to catch the ball (which would be a legal out) her hand is hit by the runner from 1B. Not intentional. What was an easy out is now a missed ball and both runners are safe. Is that what the rules makers want?

WMB

[Dakota]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
OK - now explain POE 32 A.3.b "It is interference if the batted ball ricochets off one diffensive (sic) player and any player has the opportunity to make an out." Doesn't say "intentional."

POE 32 A-3 starts out with "Intentionally interfering ... (although, to be sure, ASA seems to have mixed the context here between batted and thrown balls, so it is not entirely clear that a) thru e) are really subparagraphs of 3.) Even so, POE's will provide further clarification to a rule, they do not contradict the rule, and the rule 8-7J.5 says "Intentionally ... "

Now, in this kind of situation, the way I interpret the rule is with a somewhat broad definition of "intentional." If the deflected ball and/or the fielder chasing it give the runner little or no chance to avoid mucking up the play (by contact or not), then the runner would have to do something obvious, such as slap at the ball or something. OTOH, if the delfection happened 30 feet in front of the runner, and yet she continued to plow into the middle of the attempt to field the ball, then I would consider that "intentional."

In my game I did not believe F6 could get that runner at first on the deflected ball, so no interference. But you are saying "forget that judgement, no interference because interference was not deliberate."

Well, I didn't exactly say that, it is just that, the way I read the rule, intent had to be there and the opportunity for an out has to be there - both.

Lets change the play. Batted ball ricochets off the pitcher in the air towards F4. As she reached out to catch the ball (which would be a legal out) her hand is hit by the runner from 1B. Not intentional. What was an easy out is now a missed ball and both runners are safe. Is that what the rules makers want?WMB

Depends (IMO) on whether the runner had time to stay out of the way, but continued on anyway, or whether the whole thing happend right on top of the runner, giving her no chance (or in between).