The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 09:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 480
runner interference on throw

FED rules. Bases loaded. 2 outs. Grounder hit to F6. F6 fields the ball cleanly and as she comes up to throw, R2 runs into her (no tag or attempt to tag occurs here) causing a hesitation and late throw to 1st.

Ruling please.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 09:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmartin View Post
FED rules. Bases loaded. 2 outs. Grounder hit to F6. F6 fields the ball cleanly and as she comes up to throw, R2 runs into her (no tag or attempt to tag occurs here) causing a hesitation and late throw to 1st.

Ruling please.
INT, but hard to visualize " R2 runs into her (no tag"
__________________
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
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 09:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
INT, but hard to visualize " R2 runs into her (no tag"
Agree on the unlikelihood of no tag... but assuming no tag, based on what rule would you rule interference?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 09:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 727
8-6-10c: The runner is out when the runner interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball.
__________________
"Not all heroes have time to pose for sculptors...some still have papers to grade."
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 10:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Agree on the unlikelihood of no tag... but assuming no tag, based on what rule would you rule interference?
I was standing 8 feet away from the play...there was definately not a tag nor an attemped tag.

If INT on throw, delayed dead ball or immediate?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 10:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmartin View Post
I was standing 8 feet away from the play...there was definately not a tag nor an attemped tag.
I think what Cecil and I were alluding to is that it would not require an attempted tag to have actually had an inadvertent tag here. Not impossible .... just strange.

Quote:
If INT on throw, delayed dead ball or immediate?
Immediate.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 10:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmartin View Post
I was standing 8 feet away from the play...there was definately not a tag nor an attemped tag.

If INT on throw, delayed dead ball or immediate?
When is INT a DDB, other than ump Int?
__________________
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
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 10:08am
Call it as I see it.
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: So.Cal
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmartin View Post
I was standing 8 feet away from the play...there was definately not a tag nor an attemped tag.

If INT on throw, delayed dead ball or immediate?
INT immediately dead ball
__________________
"I couldn't see well enough to play when I was a boy, so they gave me a special job - they made me an umpire." - President of the United States Harry S. Truman
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 01:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
When is INT a DDB, other than ump Int?
Coaches interference. Coach reaches out and grab a runner to stop her.

Other than umpire or coaches interference the ball is xead on INT. The reason these are not dead balls is that you dont want to penalize the defense for an offensive act.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 01:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja View Post
Coaches interference. Coach reaches out and grab a runner to stop her.

Other than umpire or coaches interference the ball is xead on INT. The reason these are not dead balls is that you dont want to penalize the defense for an offensive act.
Oh dear. I'm kind of afraid to comment given that you think I've been picking on you. I'm not... but this one is not just wrong, but scary wrong.

A) that's not interference.
B) that's not a DDB (or any kind of DB for that matter).
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 02:45pm
Call it as I see it.
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: So.Cal
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Oh dear. I'm kind of afraid to comment given that you think I've been picking on you. I'm not... but this one is not just wrong, but scary wrong.

A) that's not interference.
B) that's not a DDB (or any kind of DB for that matter).
Correct it is not INT it's aiding a runner you verbalize Runner is out and play on
__________________
"I couldn't see well enough to play when I was a boy, so they gave me a special job - they made me an umpire." - President of the United States Harry S. Truman
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 03:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Oh dear. I'm kind of afraid to comment given that you think I've been picking on you. I'm not... but this one is not just wrong, but scary wrong.

A) that's not interference.
B) that's not a DDB (or any kind of DB for that matter).
Here's my humble opinion on this.

I started out posting on the basketball side about 10 years ago. I was very much interested in learning how to do it the right way.

I had lots of great ideas, interpretations of rules, and why my way was better.

They cured me of all that, with a not so gentle hand.

Getting called out on a board is nothing compared to running around out on the fields and knowing you don't know jack.

He'll stay around and learn, or he won't.

There's nothing you can say or do to push people in either direction.

I believe it takes a person with certain innate characteristics to use these boards.

One is the realization that you're not perfect.

Another one would be the ability to risk being wrong, goes hand in hand with the above.

Also is to have a little bit of glutton for punishment.

Because of this board, in my little piss ant part of the world, I'm considered a solid softball veteran . My Fed schedule this week bears this out

He hasn't left, so there's hope he'll stay and learn how to do things correctly.
__________________
"I'll take you home" says Geoff Tate
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 03:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 37
So I guess we can't rule the batter/runner out if there were less then 2 to begin with because the interference wasn't an attempt to prevent a double play? Or was it?


Last edited by ASA Ump MN; Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:06pm.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 15, 2013, 04:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASA Ump MN View Post
So I guess we can't rule the batter/runner out because the interference wasn't an attempt to prevent a double play? Or was it?
Ignoring the tangential nature:

What DP? Are you saying the INT would be the first out and it was intended to stop/delay the throw to 1st?
If so, if R2 did not interfere, would only allow a one out opportunity.
__________________
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
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 16, 2013, 06:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
Ignoring the tangential nature:

What DP? Are you saying the INT would be the first out and it was intended to stop/delay the throw to 1st?
If so, if R2 did not interfere, would only allow a one out opportunity.
With less than 2 outs, I'd think the first throw would most likely go to F2.
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
Runner Interference collint1993 Baseball 6 Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:01am
runner interference gipper Softball 17 Fri May 06, 2005 11:21pm
Runner interference versus umpire interference Jay R Baseball 1 Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm
Runner Interference Blaine Gallant Baseball 6 Mon Jul 02, 2001 12:23pm
Is this runner interference? BPorter Baseball 34 Mon May 28, 2001 12:45pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1