Decent question from softball dot com.

[Andy]

8.7.J1 mentions interference, interference is defined as making a play, making a play is interpreted to mean having an opportunity to get an out.

Watching a ball roll down the line and waiting for it to roll foul is a valid defensive strategy, but it will not lead to an out...only a strike on the batter and runners return to bases.

I can't stretch far enough to say that a fielder just watching a ball roll is attempting to field it.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Approved NCAA Ruling:

9.4.2.1 Obstruction
Can the fielder be guilty of obstruction if the ball is not going to be played on because the fielder chooses not to play the batted ball and is just standing there?

Yes, the fielder has to actively be playing the ball (i.e. fielding, throwing or receiving a throw) to be protected. For example, if a player is following a slow roller roll down the foul line, hoping it will go foul, she is not protected and could be guilty of obstruction if she hinders the batter-runner on her way to the running lane.

This supports Andy's thought process. If fielder is not protected from obstruction because not actively playing the ball, and contact with the fielder isn't interference, then what play has been interfered with if the ball is inadvertantly contacted?

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Andy

8.7.J1 mentions interference, interference is defined as making a play, making a play is interpreted to mean having an opportunity to get an out.

Watching a ball roll down the line and waiting for it to roll foul is a valid defensive strategy, but it will not lead to an out...only a strike on the batter and runners return to bases.

I can't stretch far enough to say that a fielder just watching a ball roll is attempting to field it.

Yes, but what if it's a bunt attempt with 2 strikes? A fielder allowing that ball to roll foul will result in an out.

[MD Longhorn]

Following the ball ... and the ball has passed a fielder. However, an F5 who simply stays back beyond 3rd base, hoping the ball will go foul before it gets to her, and you still have a possibility of INT.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Yes, but what if it's a bunt attempt with 2 strikes? A fielder allowing that ball to roll foul will result in an out.

Interesting twist and you are correct in this one instance.....

I still can't interpret that fielder standing there watching the ball as attempting to field it and make a play. We also can't predict with absolute certainty that the ball was going to roll foul before it contacted the runner.

[txtrooper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

95% of their questions are simple. This one, actually, is not, and I suspect will generate an argument... here goes:

Runner at 2nd. The batter taps a slow grounder down the 3rd base line. The 3B has no chance to throw out the batter, so she allows the ball to roll, hoping it will go foul. The 3B stays behind 3rd, waiting for the ball to roll foul. When the runner slides into 3rd, she touches the ball. What's the call?

It sounds likely that the ball was bunted (tapped) down the 3rd base line. It would be difficult to make a determination of whether F5 was attempting to let the ball go foul (considering the previous suggestion of 2 strikes); thus making a play. The question further implies that F5 stays behind 3rd base and waits for the ball. The question does not address whether or not the ball had became fair (at the time it was contacted) or whether it had passed an infielder, such as F6. ASA Rule 8.7.K would support calling a runner out if the runner is struck with/ contacts a fair batted ball prior to it passing an infielder. The question is ambiguous at best and should be clarified with additional information to make an absolute ruling.

[MD Longhorn]

I agree - the question did not include several relevant points, but I do believe it generated good discussion as to what those missing points were and what the ruling would be in each case.

(Usually their questions are the type that only the trolls here would disagree with. Simple stuff.)

[txtrooper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I agree - the question did not include several relevant points, but I do believe it generated good discussion as to what those missing points were and what the ruling would be in each case.

(Usually their questions are the type that only the trolls here would disagree with. Simple stuff.)

Agreed!