The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

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: 772
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: 2,820
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 Wed Sep 25, 2013, 03:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
PS - mentioning hindrance of the PITCHER above, the pitcher has NO rights here, and if they somehow collide ... don't we have OBSTRUCTION, and not interference? After all, the pitcher can't get in the way of an advancing runner if she doesn't have the ball ... right?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 03:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,820
If a batter, whose position is IN THE BATTER'S BOX must vacate (anywhere at all) to not interfere, in what world can we assume that the batter-runner, who has a defined responsibility (go to first base) need not?

No immediate access to rules, but I'm making an interference call if batter-runner interferes with the "play".

Not likely I am seeing obstruction, either; batter-runner should have been long gone, and any delay getting to first (it's a walk, an awarded base, for criminy sakes!!) is her fault. Okay, no rule support there, it is surely not defined as an approved exception to the rule; but neither does batter and catcher colliding when catcher is fielding a batted ball meet the definition of NOT interference (yet we are understanding to let that go).
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 04:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Steve, I respect your rulings as much as anyone here, and I'm pretty reluctant to disagree with you...

but while I appreciate the desire to punish stupid wherever possible... and clearly the extremely delayed start by the BR is stupid --- I can't see how one would justify any of what you just posted via the rulebook. Maybe, in fairness, the rule OUGHT TO say what you are a proponent of here... but I don't believe that it does.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 05:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
Does ASA 8-2-G fit this situation?

Quote:
The batter-runner is out...

When the B/R interferes with a play at home plate in an attempt to prevent an out at home plate.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 06:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Desoto, TX
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Does ASA 8-2-G fit this situation?
if you think there was intent, then yes. Otherwise, not 8.2.f applies (if the action (or lack there of) by the B/R took away the defense's opportunity to get an out.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 07:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,340
What about the just the plain definition of interference. The act of an offensive player that hinders the defense attempting to execute a play.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 25, 2013, 08:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
It is true, there is no rule telling the BR where they must be or when, but there is a rule stating they may not interfere with a play.

The defense DOES have a right to be in position in an attempt to make a play as long as not obstructing the runner. It should be noted, I don't believe it is possible to OBS a BR on a walk since s/he has already been awarded 1B (referring to this scenario only. different story if the BR was trying to advance expeditiously with the possibility of advancing beyond 1B). However, even if OBS the BR, that is not relevant to the runner advancing from 3B. And remember, being OBS does not absolve the BR from INT with a play.

But it still comes down to whether the umpire believes the BR actually interfered with the play.
__________________
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
  #15 (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
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
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 10:58am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1