The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 08, 2013, 09:03am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,286
Interference with F3 on Fly Ball

Juco game (yes, IM, it happened to me again ). Runners at first and third, one out. Batter hits a popup to F3 who is standing a couple of feet from the first base bag in fair territory, directly in line with first and second.

R2, who took a leadoff on the pitch, is sauntering back to the bag so that she doesn't get doubled up after the catch. She clearly bumps into F3 while the ball is still in the air, but not enough to phase F3, who is able to easily catch the popup just as R2 gets back on the bag.

I was doing bases, so I saw the bump from behind the shortstop. My partner and I didn't call anything. Between innings, I asked him if he saw the bump, and he confessed that he was watching the flight of the ball.

Reading 12.19.1.4 and the Note that follows the first paragraph, I'm not sure if this was interference or just inadvertent contact. If R2 had stopped or tried to get around F3, she could have been at risk of being tagged off the bag after the catch.

But, assuming one of us had killed it the moment of the bump, and ruled R2 had interfered, would the appropriate ruling have been R2 out and the BR placed on first base? Or would we also rule the BR out based upon what is written in the second exception at the end of 12.19.1.4?
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 08, 2013, 10:32am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
Juco game (yes, IM, it happened to me again ). Runners at first and third, one out. Batter hits a popup to F3 who is standing a couple of feet from the first base bag in fair territory, directly in line with first and second.

R2, who took a leadoff on the pitch, is sauntering back to the bag so that she doesn't get doubled up after the catch. She clearly bumps into F3 while the ball is still in the air, but not enough to phase F3, who is able to easily catch the popup just as R2 gets back on the bag.

I was doing bases, so I saw the bump from behind the shortstop. My partner and I didn't call anything. Between innings, I asked him if he saw the bump, and he confessed that he was watching the flight of the ball.

Reading 12.19.1.4 and the Note that follows the first paragraph, I'm not sure if this was interference or just inadvertent contact. If R2 had stopped or tried to get around F3, she could have been at risk of being tagged off the bag after the catch.

But, assuming one of us had killed it the moment of the bump, and ruled R2 had interfered, would the appropriate ruling have been R2 out and the BR placed on first base? Or would we also rule the BR out based upon what is written in the second exception at the end of 12.19.1.4?
2 outs.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 08, 2013, 11:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
Juco game (yes, IM, it happened to me again ). Runners at first and third, one out. Batter hits a popup to F3 who is standing a couple of feet from the first base bag in fair territory, directly in line with first and second.

R2, who took a leadoff on the pitch, is sauntering back to the bag so that she doesn't get doubled up after the catch. She clearly bumps into F3 while the ball is still in the air, but not enough to phase F3, who is able to easily catch the popup just as R2 gets back on the bag.

I was doing bases, so I saw the bump from behind the shortstop. My partner and I didn't call anything. Between innings, I asked him if he saw the bump, and he confessed that he was watching the flight of the ball.

Reading 12.19.1.4 and the Note that follows the first paragraph, I'm not sure if this was interference or just inadvertent contact. If R2 had stopped or tried to get around F3, she could have been at risk of being tagged off the bag after the catch.
Don't understand why that would be a concern. It certainly isn't in any of the rule books I've seen. Anytime the offense leaves the base, they are placing themselves in jeopardy.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 08, 2013, 12:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 758
Interference on a fly ball. The runner is out and the batter is out.

I assume by R2 you really mean R1 since we are applying NCAA rules. When in Rome...
__________________
Kill the Clones. Let God sort them out.
No one likes an OOJ (Over-officious jerk).
Realistic officiating does the sport good.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 08, 2013, 01:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,287
Any though on whether the bump actually hindered the fielder?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 08, 2013, 01:21pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
That's U's call, so I didn't really want to disagree with Manny's judgement on that. But I will add this, since you ask... my threshold for whether this is INT or not is going to be VERY low... and also, you need to make that determination at the moment of contact, and not wait to see if it actually affects the fielder. If it IS interference, it's dead at that instant, and the catch/no-catch never happens. If it's not, and you don't call it, and then she drops it, you can't (or well... shouldn't) retroactively change your mind.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 08, 2013, 01:42pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
Interference on a fly ball. The runner is out and the batter is out.
Great. But for argument's sake, what rule cite would you use to back this up?

I mentioned in my OP the second Exception at the end of the rule that states, "If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, the batter is also out." Well, the bump did not prevent F3 from making the catch. She was able to catch it easily. That's why I was leaning towards this being inadvertent contact.

If the Exception was written to read, "If the interference occurs when the fielder is attempting to catch a routine fly ball, the batter is also out", that would be much clearer on how to rule in this instance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
I assume by R2 you really mean R1 since we are applying NCAA rules. When in Rome...
So much for consistency, even within softball circles. I thought that problem only existed in baseball...
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 08, 2013, 02:08pm
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Argh! My mistake entirely - was ruling ASA. You're right in NCAA rules that it's only interference if they prevent the fielder from making the catch. I retract all the nonsense I spouted previously. Sorry.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 08:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post

I mentioned in my OP the second Exception at the end of the rule that states, "If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, the batter is also out." Well, the bump did not prevent F3 from making the catch. She was able to catch it easily. That's why I was leaning towards this being inadvertent contact.
At the moment of the "bump," you have interference. At the time of interference, you have a dead ball. At the moment of any dead ball, nothing else can happen, including catching a fly ball. Therefore, the fielder is prevented from catching a fly ball, and thus you have two outs. It is of no consequence if the ball happens to land in the fielders glove after you call interference: MD is correct when he says:
Quote:
If it IS interference, it's dead at that instant, and the catch/no-catch never happens.
I believe this same conversation happened last year due to a very similar play in a super regional.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 08:12am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
At the moment of the "bump," you have interference. At the time of interference, you have a dead ball.
Not in NCAA.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 08:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Not in NCAA.
How do you figure? If you call interference, nothing else can happen.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 10:36am
Moderator M-800
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
How do you figure? If you call interference, nothing else can happen.
In NCAA rules, you're not supposed to call it the second it happens on a fly ball... like you would in any other code. You're supposed to see if it ACTUALLY interferes with a catch rather than potentially... in other words, the umpire is required to wait to see if the potential interference prevented the catch before making a ruling of interference.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 10:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
In NCAA rules, you're not supposed to call it the second it happens on a fly ball... like you would in any other code. You're supposed to see if it ACTUALLY interferes with a catch rather than potentially... in other words, the umpire is required to wait to see if the potential interference prevented the catch before making a ruling of interference.
Where are you getting this from? Interference is interference in all codes. There is no "wait and see."
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 11:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
In NCAA rules, you're not supposed to call it the second it happens on a fly ball... like you would in any other code. You're supposed to see if it ACTUALLY interferes with a catch rather than potentially... in other words, the umpire is required to wait to see if the potential interference prevented the catch before making a ruling of interference.
Maybe you want to view this:
Quote:
A.R.12.19.1.4^1:
With the bases loaded and no one out, the batter hits a declared infield fly
right in the baseline between first and second bases. The base runner, on her return to first base following her lead-off, runs into the first baseman attempting to field the fly ball.
1) The base runner from third base tags and advances home; 2) the base runners on second and third bases do not attempt to advance. In either
case, is this interference even though the base runner contacts the fielder who is already credited with the put out and is not making an additional play?
RULING:
In both cases, the batter is out on the infield fly and the ball is immediately dead when the base runner interferes with the first baseman making the catch. The base runner from first base is out on interference and the other base runners must return to the bases held at the time of the interference.
This is an interpretation posted on the Arbiter. The bold in my emphasis.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 11:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
In NCAA rules, you're not supposed to call it the second it happens on a fly ball... like you would in any other code. You're supposed to see if it ACTUALLY interferes with a catch rather than potentially... in other words, the umpire is required to wait to see if the potential interference prevented the catch before making a ruling of interference.
So, you are saying a DDB is situational in NCAA's rules concerning INT?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interference / Blocked Ball / Nothing NCASAUmp Softball 11 Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:27pm
Deflected ball and interference WestMichBlue Softball 10 Tue Oct 18, 2005 06:33pm
Interference or just a Dead Ball 18597 Softball 1 Tue Aug 17, 2004 03:49pm
interference with batted ball nelyak Softball 21 Mon Aug 18, 2003 02:29pm
Interference on Ball 4 PeteBooth Baseball 3 Tue Aug 29, 2000 11:42pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1