Retired runner proceeds straight to base -- do you have interference? (ASA)

[Dakota]

Perhaps the OP would benefit from a bit of a discussion about why.

Here's one principle: an active runner can't just go "poof".
Here's another: interference requires an "act" of interference.

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Here's one principle: an active runner can't just go "poof".
Here's another: interference requires an "act" of interference.

Here's another: Not all "acts" considered by the defense to be interference are interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by nopachunts

Here's another: Not all "acts" considered by the defense to be interference are interference.

WAIT A MINUTE! You mean the defense doesn't get to decide that?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Perhaps the OP would benefit from a bit of a discussion about why.

Here's one principle: an active runner can't just go "poof".
Here's another: interference requires an "act" of interference.

Where in the rules does it say the runner can't just go poof? Also, what is defined as an act of interference?

An act can be defined as simply putting yourself into a position to be hit by the throw, which by continuing to run, the runner in the OP has done.

Let's look at a slightly different play. Very slow runner on first. Hard shot to F4, who throws to F6 for the force. F6 then guns to first to try getting B2 at first. The throw hits R1 who knows they are out and has stopped. This prevents the double play. By stopping has R1 committed an "act of interference?" What if he/she had just been slowing jogging/walking and to second knowing they were put out at 2b. Where is the act of interference or lack of an act of interference on that.

(Yes some of the church league game I do have players that big and slow that this could be an issue.)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Where in the rules does it say the runner can't just go poof?

It says so in my physics book. Unless, of course, the Rapture happened right at that moment, and R1 was a believer...

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It says so in my physics book. Unless, of course, the Rapture happened right at that moment, and R1 was a believer...

Well, there's always the Hogwarts Book of Spells.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It says so in my physics book. Unless, of course, the Rapture happened right at that moment, and R1 was a believer...

I really like this.....having had 32 hours of Physics (Quantum Physics/Orbital Bodies/Nuclear and some Electrical Engineering courses counted as Physics when I was in college. I hated Ficken Optics and Magnetism......my oldest Daughter ate that shit up...(that is why she is an engineer and I am not)...My brother was also a genius at that stuff. Ugh......all I have to say.......I was always a Chemistry Guy......

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, there's always the Hogwarts Book of Spells.

But, I like this one better.........d;-)

Flitwick would have been awesome.

[CecilOne]

This seems to be one of the least resolved issues in umpiring.
Is there any way to get this clarified/ruled/interpreted officially; short of asking each tournament UIC how they interpret it?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

This seems to be one of the least resolved issues in umpiring.
Is there any way to get this clarified/ruled/interpreted officially; short of asking each tournament UIC how they interpret it?

Only among those that won't listen is this unclarified. And it should not be interpreted differently by different UIC's. Let me try...

Here's one principle: an active runner can't just go "poof".
Here's another: interference requires an "act" of interference.
Here's another: Not all "acts" considered by the defense to be interference are interference.

I think I might have heard those recently....

[sbatten]

Thanks to all for the discussion. As noted by two posters...

Here's another: Not all "acts" considered by the defense to be interference are interference.

I brought the topic up because I had the situation of the defense changing her actions (moving a step toward the infield) to avoid hitting the retired runner with the throw. The throw was late but close. I called the batter-runner safe, no interference.

The defensive coach politely but strenuously disagreed. She said I should have called a double-play because of the runner's actions. I explained to the coach a runner simply continuing in her forward momentum she was not committing an act to hinder the defense, and that as long as she wasn't committing some other act (like throwing up her arms to block a throw, or running into F4 while she was making the throw) she was not interfering.

I know this topic has been discussed here before and I thank you all for letting me air it out again. The coach had me second-guessing myself afterwards.

Scott

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by sbatten

Thanks to all for the discussion. As noted by two posters...



I brought the topic up because I had the situation of the defense changing her actions (moving a step toward the infield) to avoid hitting the retired runner with the throw. The throw was late but close. I called the batter-runner safe, no interference.

The defensive coach politely but strenuously disagreed. She said I should have called a double-play because of the runner's actions. I explained to the coach a runner simply continuing in her forward momentum she was not committing an act to hinder the defense, and that as long as she wasn't committing some other act (like throwing up her arms to block a throw, or running into F4 while she was making the throw) she was not interfering.

I know this topic has been discussed here before and I thank you all for letting me air it out again. The coach had me second-guessing myself afterwards.

Scott

This is a subject that is way overthought and people try to make something out of nothing.

A runner has every right to attempt to advance to a base. A runner should never be expected stop playing the game based on an assumption the call was out.

A runner should be expected to always maintain what would be the path to the base. Not altering a path is not an act of INT. ASSUMING an out and moving anywhere away from that path would be an act that if it affected the defense's ability to make a play on another runner should be ruled INT.

This train of thought is not new and has been in place since I've been umpiring softball (25 years).

Other than the point that the NCAA has callously opened season on runners the last couple of years, the only reason I can figure someone thought things changed was when ASA removed the "intent" notations to many of the INT rules.

When that occurred, there was no intention, pardon the pun, to change the manner in which the "acts" of interference were to be judged.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It says so in my physics book. Unless, of course, the Rapture happened right at that moment, and R1 was a believer...

I'm not arguing that, BUT, where in the rules does it say that? The rules don't always completely agree with logic.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I'm not arguing that, BUT, where in the rules does it say that? The rules don't always completely agree with logic.

As it was said at the Advanced Fastpitch Camp this past week, Not every situation is covered by the rule book and sometimes you have to toss the rule book and apply logic to a play.

[EsqUmp]

Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."

Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.

So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?

Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."

Yes, and as a matter of fact, that was the same verbiage used in Colorado Springs in 2006 at the National Council Meeting when "intent" was removed from the INT rules.

Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.

That's not logic, that's just a misleading argument. What R1 is "supposed to be doing" is avoiding a fielder making a play on a batted ball.

So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?

That could be true. But on OBS, the runner just gets what should have been where on INT, the defense ALWAYS receives an assumed out, sometimes two.

Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.

No more so than awarding a base to a runner on an IP. One has nothing to do with the other except for being punitive, just like effecting the LBR for a runner stepping off a base or not deciding to return to the base quick enough when there is obviously no play developing.

Then there is the U3K. Why does the offense get another chance to reach the base safely simply after failing to put the ball into play and the catcher doesn't catch the ball? Neither did what they were supposed to do, so why isn't it just a wash?