I think the big point were batting around here is simply: What rights does a retired runner or a runner who has scored have on the field? As far as I can see they only have the right to not interfere with the offense and/or the ball.

How about this:

No outs, bases loaded. B4 gets base hit to F8. R1 from third scores easily. R2 from second rounds third and heads home. F8 fields ball and throws home but the throw is short and F2 moves inside the diamond in front of home plate to catch the throw. R2 slides across home plate. F2 misses the catch and the ball goes to the backstop with nobody backing up F2. F2 turns and goes after the ball but runs into R2 who is getting up from her slide into home. F2 falls to the ground as R3 comes home and the BR moves to third.


A. R1 and R2 score, ball is dead when F2 trips over R2. R3 is out for R2s interference and BR returns to second.
B. R1 scores. R2 is out for interference with F2. R3 returns the 3B and BR returns to 2B.
C. R1 and R2 score. Ball is dead when F2 trips over R2. R3 returns to 3B and BR returns to 2B.
D. Play stands as R2 did not intentionally interfere she was just returning to her team area.
:confused:

My answer: As I visualize your play. E) Play stands as R2 did not commit an act of interference. She isn't required to disappear or remain motionless after scoring. The catcher tripped over her. Now had she moved into the catcher while the catcher was over her then that could be an act of interference. Or if she had moved in front of her. But laying on the ground isn't an act of interference.

Under the high school rules, the only way this is interference is if the act is intentional. 8-6-10d.

Check that, maybe 8-6-10d isn't the correct rule, 8-6-16c applies, and that would indicate it is interference.

Under high school rules yes this is interference under the definition of the rules. Rule 8-6-16 c would cover this.

"After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive players opportunity to make a play on another runner. ...."

This rule does not require intent to be called, only that the defensive player be interfered with.

In the case you mention, all three cases have the run scoring and the interference being called, with the runner closest to home being declared out (according to the strict definition of the rules).


With all of that said, I would be getting with my partner on this play to determine if there was a legitimate play to be made on the runner when the contact occurred. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the offensive team in this situation that a legitimate play was not being made. To be a legitimate play, in my opinion it must meet the requirement of 2-47-2c "an attempt by a defensive player to retire a runner or batter runner.". If the batter runner is 1 step from 1st base when the interference occurs, I am not ruling that this constitutes a play, thus no interference. If F2 is throwing the ball and the batter-runner is half way to 1st, then I have a play and thus by rule I have to have interference.

The issue is the play being made. I am not considering the throw a play if the batter runner is a step away from first when the throw is being delivered. I think this is where umpires have to use their judgment. If F2 has a chance to throw a player out, then yes, it is interference.

I would be getting with my partner on this to determine if we really had interference or if we had nothing.

If the catcher is attempting to throw to first base and is contacted, she is attempting to make a play (on the BR), therefore by rule contact by the retired (scored) runner is in fact interference and the runner closest to home shall be declared out (NFHS rules).

Speaking ASA, IMO, it is a DMC. If the catcher had time to obtain control of the loose ball and turn to throw, that means she could have just as easily put out the approaching runner. The runner is going to be moving at top speed assuming the catch may attempt to make a tag. And I don't care if it wasn't wise for the runner to attempt to score, stupidity isn't against the rules. If it were, many games wouldn't last an hour :)

The NFHS rule, including the casebook, makes no allowance for common sense or real life action. However, the definition of Interference in the NFHS book notes it is an ACT of interference which ILLEGALLY impedes, hinders or confuses the fielder. What is illegal about the runner's advancement to score and not break a leg while doing so :)

Also, do you call the runner closest to home out every time a defender has to avoid a sliding runner to complete a throw to 1B? If not, its the same rule, so why not?

Nothing is illegal about the advancement to score. The issue is that the runner is no longer advancing to score when she has already scored, so talking about advancing to score and contacting a defensive player after she has scored is not the same thing.

This simple fact is the rules say one thing, and the rules are very black and white. Real life (and softball) are played in color. As I have said, I better be absolutely sure that the catcher actually has a play that can be made on a runner before I'm calling interference on the runner.

Let's look at this on a slightly different play.

R1 on 2nd, R2 on first, B3 hits a line shot base hit to right field. F7 throws home trying to get R1 coming home. The throw is off target and F2 has to step behind the plate to catch the throw. Knowing she has no chance to reach and tag R1 before she touches home, F2 immediately catches the ball and tried throwing to F6 covering second base in an attempt to get B3 stretching the single into a double. R1, after touching home plate collides with F2 making the throw.

Since F2 is making a play on B3 this could be interference correct? The contact by R1 interfered with F2 making a play on B3. What happens if after this contact F2's throw ends up in right field and now R2 and B3 both come up. The contact (which isn't intentional) does interfere with the play being made by F2 on B3. (Again, this may not be the smartest play by F2, since throwing to second base may allow R2 to advance home).

When you reference illegally in the definition of interference, you mention the runner advancing home is not illegal. As I stated above, the act of coming home is not illegal, but the act of contacting the player after touching home can be illegal because of the black and white of the rule.

This again goes to the color vs black and white portion of the argument. Rules are black and white and don't always translate to a color world.

In the case of a sliding player, I think no matter what, we have to look at intent. If the player is put out before the slide, then slides and contacts the defender do we have a) a player trying to get out of the way of a possible throw over her head to first base, or b) a player trying to intentionally contact a player to prevent a double play from occurring? Is the slide legal or illegal? If it is an illegal slide, then we have interference.

Now if the player slides and the defensive player gets to the base just ahead of the runner and contact occurs, we likely have nothing, provided it is a legal slide.


Again color vs black and white.

So, the answer is no. Sliding simply protects a runner from a collision ruling, not INT. I agree that you need to look at the play, but not necessarily intent. You need to look for an act that causes the INT. Of course, if you see a runner and you believe there was intent, then you obviously had an act of interference.

Basically yes.

So you don't expect a runner going from base to base to go poof, but at home plate you expect a runner to stop on a dime or just disappear the moment they touch the plate.

I didn't mention anything other than what the rule states, not me. Personally, I believe it is an ambiguous statement. Again, I'm still looking for an act of interference.

BTW, here is what I believe to be an interesting post from another board:

I called Jay Miner this afternoon and he got a good chuckle when I asked him this question. (concerning removing "intent" and the word "act" being included in ASA's definition of INT)
For those unfamiliar with Jay Miner, he is the chief rules interpreter for all public school softball in New York State ( which uses A.S.A. rules) as well as a frequent writer for Referee magazine.
Jay told me that it was at his urging that ASA removed "intent" from interference, but it was in regard to a scored runner who interferes with a catcher attempting to make another throw.
Jay never imagined that they would remove intentional from thrown ball interference and admitted that it opens up a can of worms--for example, it could lead to fielders intentionally throwing at a runner trying to draw a call.

I don't buy that logic. There is only one reason F2 would be throwing the ball to first, and that's because she's making a play on the BR. We don't judge whether or not the BR would have been safe on the play as criteria to determine if the play would have been successful or not.

A runner goes into second base standing up and collides into F4 as F4 turns to make a throw to first on the DP. Does the BU go to his/her BU partner to determine if the BR would have easily beaten the throw?

RH Batter steps out of the box to look at her coach at third for a sign, and she causes F2 to throw wildly as F2 attempts to pick off a runner at third. Does the PU get his/her BU's opinion if the runner would have made it back to third easily?

I hope you answered No on those examples. I have never seen in a game, nor never have been told in a clinic, that partners consult with each other prior to making an interference ruling. Heck, in the OP, you never know if the BR is going to miss first after she overruns it, or if she's going to turn toward second after she makes it to first. The catcher's throw would certainly be a play attempt then, would it not?

Interesting
 

in A and B this would have to be a HTBT call...however, if the catcher is only inches and/or a step beyond the plate where is the runner supposed to go? Isn't the runner permitted to run the bases as long as it is done so properly?

The part about consulting with your partner is a red herring (IMO), since the discussion is what is and what is not interference, not what you can and what you cannot see.

Without a play, there is no interference. That is basic. Merely throwing the ball around is not making a play. If there is no reasonable possibility of an out, what is the play?