They all happen to me. Another crazy play brought about by lack of instinct on the part of the players.

Women's SP. Bases loaded, one out. Ground ball to the left of F5, who fields the ball and begins to throw to 1B. (Never mind that there were easier plays at every other base.)

As F5 is reaching back preparing to throw, she realizes that the runner from 2B is approaching, so she holds her ground and turns to face the runner, who proceeds to run into her. <i>But F5 simply holds the ball high as if to throw it and never even comes close to tagging the runner!</i> Then she throws to 1B to retire the B/R.

I was so conscious of the lack of a tag that I simply called the out at 1B. However, I quickly called interference and went from there. (Runner from 3B goes back, etc.) Everybody in the park agreed that I made the correct call, but there was one doubter—me. What's the call when the fielder with the ball makes no attempt to tag the runner and instead simply stands in the baseline and allows the runner to collide with her? Can't find that one in the book!

If this play happened in OBR, I could argue that the fielder simply failed to tag the runner and got only the out at 1B. Under ASA rules, I could make a case for a double play in that the runner was out for interference, and since the throw to 1B did retire the runner, the interference clearly prevented another out.

{snip}
What's the call when the fielder with the ball makes no attempt to tag the runner and instead simply stands in the baseline and allows the runner to collide with her? Can't find that one in the book!

Problem: ASA makes the point that a fielder with posession cannot be charged with obstruction under the rules.

However, it seems to me that the underlying assumption is that the defensive player, F5 in this case, is going to attempt to make a play on a runner.

My initial instinct was to say obstruction on the part of the fielder, but I devoutly believe that given the rule book's emphasis, you couldn't call obstruction on this play. But I also have trouble with the idea that the runner's actions created a play that prevented a double play.

My ruling would have been B/R out at one, no call on the collision at second because the fielder, in my opinion, had a legitimate chance to convert the play before, during, and after the action. For support, see 9.01(c).

But I can also see the case for interference. I'd lean toward no call, but it doesn't sound like calling intereference was disagreed with much by your spectators, coaches, players, et cetera.

Obstruction isn't even on the horizon in this case. A defender cannot obstruct a runner when in possession of the ball. I don't understand where the thought even comes from in these scenarios.

For an interference call, I would have to see the runner do something (i.e. cross-arms, reach out, etc.) which would indicate the anticipation of a collision and no intent to avoid it. I don't think you have a double-play scenario as F5 seems to be the one who hesitated, just wasn't smart enough to make a tag. DMF!

I'm with Mike on this one. I don't see this as much different from F5 reaching and attempting to tag the runner before throwing to first.

If she misses the tag, I've got a "safe, no tag!" call there and then the force out at first if the throw beats the B/R.

The only way I could call an interference here is if the contact came as F5 was somewhere in the process of making the throw to first.

The description:
"F5 is reaching back preparing to throw, ... snip ..., who proceeds to run into her. ... snip ... holds the ball high as if to throw it"
sounds like part of the throw to me, therefore interference. As it does not sound like a deliberate attempt to break up a double play, BR would be safe (ball is dead, play at 1st is non-existent).

Cecil,

The sentence before your quote: so she holds her ground and turns to face the runner, who proceeds to run into her...Then she throws to 1B to retire the B/R.

To me, this sounds as if F5 made a deliberate "play" on the runner before throwing to first. That was the basis for my opinion.

This is definitely a HTBT play, and I can see a basis for an interference call. My interpretation of the description given would not include an interference call.