need a little help I have confused myself
 

Here is the situation: r1 on first batter hits pop up in vicinity of bag. Runner is standing on bag and never moves. Fielder coming over to make play runs into runner and both fall to ground. The ball lands about a foot in front of bag and rolls into foul territory without being touched. What would we have. This was in a high school game. I called foul ball and left it at that, after the game the defensive coach said he would have liked to have had the interference. Help me figure this out PLease. I feel like the runner was doing what she was supposed to do and did nothing to create any interference but I also think the fielder has the right of way to make the play. Thanks guys for the information in advance.

The runner is not required to vacate the base for the defense to make a play. The runner, however, may not commit an act of INT while in contact with the base. IOW, if she just stands there, it is nothing.

I do not see an exception for on the base in NFHS rules. Please cite.

8-8-13 Runner is not out when hit by a fair batted ball while touching a base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or the fielder making a play.

That's not the same as interfering with a fly ball. There is no reference to the batter being hit by the ball. If that were the case and the runner was on the base, the ball would have been fair...

Did you actually read the last 6 words of the rule? "or the fielder making a play" The rule cited covers 2 seperate incidences of possible interference by the runner, getting hit by a fair batted ball while standing on a base, or interfering with a player making a play. In both instances the runners act would have to be intentional in order to be guilty of interference.

...sigh...

Thank you.

Thanks guys you helped me out. Mbcrowder, I am not sure what the sigh is about, but...

All I wanted was to double check myself after the coach got me to overthinking a little. Sometimes all we need is someone else to discuss it in front of you to help clear the webs.

Thanks again guys I read these posts alot but rarely post

OOH! OOH! I Know! I Know!
 

The sigh was for the comment "she was doing what she was supposed to do". I figured he would say something about it. He doesn't like that phrase.

Nothing personal... I went on a bit of a tirade the other day about the phrase you used - "she was just doing what she was supposed to be doing." The sigh was from seeing it again. :)

See I told ya!
 

Do I know my mbcrowder or what?

I am not sure the the rule cited covers the situation since it states that the runner was hit by a batted ball, which did not occur in the situation in the OP.

I did not find anything in the rule book that directly addresses the situation in the OP, but I do think that the call was correct.

Every situation that might be considered interference that is mentioned in the books (rule book and case book) has no violation IF the runner was on a base and there was no intentional act of interference. The call made was consistent with the rules even if they do not mention this specific case.

:) !!!

no problem. I just couldnt see what it was for but i can understand. I have some of those pet peaves myself. I really do appreciate being able to come to this site and get things from different perspectives. It has helped me become a better umpire. thanks guys

BTW, had state NFHS rules interpreter confirm this was the appropriate rule for the scenario offered.

Without making it a tirade again, or personal, I'll summarize.

IMHO
"She was only doing what she was supposed to do" is a crutch. It's a coach's crutch that generally means either, "I don't know the rule and don't understand this ruling." or "I think that rule is unfair". It's an umpire's crutch that often means, "I don't know the rules, but this ruling SEEMS right."

I would say that at least 1/3 of the time someone says this, they are wrong. The other 2/3, they happen to be right, but only by sheer luck. Generally, to me, if an umpire says this, he is as much as saying that he doesn't know the rule involved, and is ruling on what he perceives as fair. I'd rather umpires know WHY they are making the correct ruling as much as I want them to make the correct ruling.

Case in point - the OP (and please don't take this personally). You had the rule right - but only on accident. You made the ruling because "I feel like the runner was doing what she was supposed to do", and in this case, the ruling was right... but to me it's important that you rule the way you did because you KNOW the relevant rule. If a coach asks you about the call and you use the crutch, he will know you don't really know the rule. Much better for blue to say, "In ASA, the runner is not out when she unintentionally interferes with the ball or the fielder making a play while she is standing on the base."

So much for making it short, eh? :) Anyway, that is the background of the sigh ... I hope you don't take it personally, but I also hope you (and all umpires) shy away from using the phrase, or at least, if you find yourself thinking that phrase, you will later check the book to see not only IF you were right, but WHY you were right.

no advantage
 

I suppose not calling an illegal pitch because "she didn't gain an advantage" is out the question?

:confused: ;)

My answer to that one is, "Good! Then she won't lose anything by pitching legally!"

I'm honestly not sure what you are saying... are you saying that is a valid reason to not call an illegal pitch, or the opposite? Not sure how that fits what I'm talking about at all, really. Can you clarify? Sorry to be so obtuse.

C'mon! Hugo even used TWO smilie things. Of course he's joking! :D

I blame lack of coffee!!! :)

Also, ASA RS 33.A.1.c confirms the intentionally and that it applies to both with "the ball" and "fielder making a play". The punctuation (one continuous phrase after "intentionally") says that as well.

NFHS rule above is the same as ASA, except that ASA skips the first "when" and says "while" for the second "when" and does not say "fair".

NFHS does not have a case but with identical wording, any interpretation would have to be the same ----- no INT on base unless intentional.

I knew I could count on Bret to splain...

But you still didn't take it personally, right? :rolleyes: :D

Oh and to splain why it fits in to what you were talking about....
It seems it's the same guys who say "She was only doing what she was supposed to do" that will say "But she isn't gaining an advantage",

I'm with you, they are both silly things to say.

NCAA has good language for this situation:
Rule 12.19.14.1: "When the defensive player, while watching the flight of a ball, bumps a base runner who is standing on a base and fails to make a catch on a catchable ball, the base runner shall not be called out unless the hindrance is intentional. A base runner must vacated any space needed by a fielder to make a play on a batted ball, unless the base runner has contact with a legally occupied base when the hindrance occurs."

nothing personal taken. I ruled that way because i felt that was correct according to the rules not what i though was fair. I guess my biggest mistake was listening to the coach try and sell his interference plea. This is my second year of doing high school softball and i pride myself in trying to not only know the rules but apply them properly. I got caught overthinking the situation and confused myself. Thanks for you guys I have several pointers to take and implement in my games. Thank you for that

Again....you bring in a ruleset that was not part of the original scenario......

Congrats........

Joel