The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 01:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Interference?

It's me against the world on another thread...

Runner on 3rd, count is 3-0. With a right handed batter, the next pitch is a ball wide outside, and it gets away from the catcher. The runner attempts to steal home, but the batter, upset about walking again, just stands in the box with a sour face. The catcher retrieves the ball and flips it to the pitcher as she comes in to cover the steal, but the batter still has one foot in the box as she's attempting to walk to first and the runner slides in safely around the batters foot. Call?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 01:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northeast Nebraska
Posts: 776
I think would have to be there. The way it's written, I've got a big fat nothing. The run scores.

As I read the scenario, other than physically being present near the plate, the batter-runner has not yet interfered with anyone's ability to make a play.

Last edited by teebob21; Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 01:48pm.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 01:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
It's me against the world on another thread...

Runner on 3rd, count is 3-0. With a right handed batter, the next pitch is a ball wide outside, and it gets away from the catcher. The runner attempts to steal home, but the batter, upset about walking again, just stands in the box with a sour face. The catcher retrieves the ball and flips it to the pitcher as she comes in to cover the steal, but the batter still has one foot in the box as she's attempting to walk to first and the runner slides in safely around the batters foot. Call?
You tell me; did the (no longer a batter, but a batter-runner that no longer has the right to occupy the batters box or to interfere with a "play") actually interfere with the defense's opportunity to make an out? Seems to me you left out the most important part, the judgment.

Forget intent, or even what she was thinking or why still standing there. Did she interfere?
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 02:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Good point, Steve.

Let's assume, for the purpose of the argument, that absent the batter, the throw would have (in the judgement of the umpire) been caught by the pitcher and they would have gotten the runner out.

I'm not sure I agree with your "no longer has the right to occupy the batters box" comment. I don't see a rule to support that. The batter-runner is not required to be in any particular spot - we don't proscribe where she's allowed to run (well... running lane stuff, but that doesn't apply here). To me, this play does not differ from the following:

Runner on 2nd, BR walked and the ball gets away up the first base line a bit. Runner breaks, F2 retrieves the ball and throws to 3rd, striking BR as she proceeds up the line. That's not interference. Why would the OP be?

In every other case (running lane aside), we require intent to call an out when a thrown ball strikes a live runner (or batter-runner). Why would this play be any different?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 03:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: north central Pa
Posts: 2,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Good point, Steve.

Let's assume, for the purpose of the argument, that absent the batter, the throw would have (in the judgement of the umpire) been caught by the pitcher and they would have gotten the runner out.

I'm not sure I agree with your "no longer has the right to occupy the batters box" comment. I don't see a rule to support that. The batter-runner is not required to be in any particular spot - we don't proscribe where she's allowed to run (well... running lane stuff, but that doesn't apply here). To me, this play does not differ from the following:

Runner on 2nd, BR walked and the ball gets away up the first base line a bit. Runner breaks, F2 retrieves the ball and throws to 3rd, striking BR as she proceeds up the line. That's not interference. Why would the OP be?

In every other case (running lane aside), we require intent to call an out when a thrown ball strikes a live runner (or batter-runner). Why would this play be any different?
Since the batter has completed the "at bat", what reason is there to be in the batter's box? This is no longer a batter, but is now a batter-runner with the responsibility to advance and with no right to be in the batter's box. So, the question - did she interfere? - is the right question to answer.
__________________
Steve M
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 03:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Impeding a thrown ball, and impeding a fielder are quite different.

The OP reads as the BR has started toward 1st, therefore no "sanctuary" of just completing a pitch or a swing.

Yes, we need to know if the BR impeded/hindered the pitcher and his second post read that way ("absent the batter, the throw would have (in the judgment of the umpire) been caught by the pitcher and they would have gotten the runner out") .
__________________
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
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 03:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
I'm still looking for "responsibility to advance" and "right to be in the batters box" in my book. Or anything along that line at all. The batters box is no sanctuary ... but it's not a danger spot either. It's just another place on the field at this point in the play - no different than being 4 feet up the line, 30 feet up the line, or halfway to second. There is no obligation anywhere that the runner must proceed forward on the basepaths, and if she doesn't, fielders can throw at her to get her out.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 26, 2013, 11:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
It's me against the world on another thread...
Mike....now you know how I feel regarding the other play from that site....
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 26, 2013, 01:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Mike....now you know how I feel regarding the other play from that site....
Ah ... you must be the 2 base award on the ball that was bobbled by a fielder before going over a temporary fence guy. If so, yes, you were out on your own on that one.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 26, 2013, 09:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Ah ... you must be the 2 base award on the ball that was bobbled by a fielder before going over a temporary fence guy. If so, yes, you were out on your own on that one.
You didn't know that?
__________________
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
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 29, 2013, 12:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
It's me against the world on another thread...

Runner on 3rd, count is 3-0. With a right handed batter, the next pitch is a ball wide outside, and it gets away from the catcher. The runner attempts to steal home, but the batter, upset about walking again, just stands in the box with a sour face. The catcher retrieves the ball and flips it to the pitcher as she comes in to cover the steal, but the batter still has one foot in the box as she's attempting to walk to first and the runner slides in safely around the batters foot. Call?
Hey Mike, does one foot in mean the other was out of the batters box? What did you rule? Would you have considered 8.2.F.3?
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 29, 2013, 05:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 359
As stated by others this is a batter-runner not a batter. Nothing in the rules requires her to run immediately. There has to be some action by her that the umpire judges to be interference.

Did the throw from F2 merely contact the BR as she stood there being disgusted about walking? I probably have nothing, go get the ball, play on. No different from a runner advancing from 1B to 2B and being hit by a throw to the base in an attempt to make a play on her. Unless this runner does something to interfere (i.e. reaches out and knocks down the throw) this is just a bad throw go get the ball play on.

But if (in BUs judgement) the BR intentionally moves into the throw or steps into the throwing lane to screen F1 taking a throw from F2. Now you probably have INT.

As to OBS, if BR is impeded by F1 who does not yet have the ball then it would be OBS but as stated this does not absolve BR of being called for INT. It doesn't matter that she was an idiot for not advancing immediately she still has right of way over a defensive player without the ball.

The PU has to make a judgement call, was BR just trying to advance to 1B and was impeded by F1 or did she run into F1 to break up the play at the plate. Having a foot still in the box or a foot completely out of the bbox does not matter. Judgement.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 29, 2013, 09:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpireErnie View Post
As stated by others this is a batter-runner not a batter. Nothing in the rules requires her to run immediately. There has to be some action by her that the umpire judges to be interference.

Did the throw from F2 merely contact the BR as she stood there being disgusted about walking? I probably have nothing, go get the ball, play on. No different from a runner advancing from 1B to 2B and being hit by a throw to the base in an attempt to make a play on her. Unless this runner does something to interfere (i.e. reaches out and knocks down the throw) this is just a bad throw go get the ball play on.

But if (in BUs judgement) the BR intentionally moves into the throw or steps into the throwing lane to screen F1 taking a throw from F2. Now you probably have INT.

As to OBS, if BR is impeded by F1 who does not yet have the ball then it would be OBS but as stated this does not absolve BR of being called for INT. It doesn't matter that she was an idiot for not advancing immediately she still has right of way over a defensive player without the ball.

The PU has to make a judgement call, was BR just trying to advance to 1B and was impeded by F1 or did she run into F1 to break up the play at the plate. Having a foot still in the box or a foot completely out of the bbox does not matter. Judgement.
According to ASA Rule 8, Section 2.F.3: When the batter-runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batters box the batter runner is out. The original post stated that only one foot was in the batters box and it is supported by rule as a factor that can be used in determining if the rules were violated.

Last edited by txtrooper; Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 10:04pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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
Umpire Interference / Batter Interference bob jenkins Baseball 17 Mon Feb 06, 2012 09:57pm
batters interference/interference by teammate _Bruno_ Baseball 7 Mon Apr 07, 2008 07:28am
interference ignored?? newump Baseball 6 Fri Jan 11, 2008 09:15pm
ump interference ggk Baseball 50 Sun Sep 03, 2006 07:52pm
Runner interference versus umpire interference Jay R Baseball 1 Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1