Interference?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

This sounds right to me if and only if the throw from the catcher that was interfered with had a shot at getting BR2 or BR2 advances to second because of the interference. If F2 was throwing back to F1, then where's the play.

I think it's a pretty safe assumption to make, given the scenario, that F2's throw was for a play on the BR going to first base. I seriously doubt that F2 would be throwing the ball back to F1 on an uncaught third strike where the BR is advancing.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I think it's a pretty safe assumption to make, given the scenario, that F2's throw was for a play on the BR going to first base. I seriously doubt that F2 would be throwing the ball back to F1 on an uncaught third strike where the BR is advancing.

That depends on how long it takes to recover the ball. And for that matter on the level of play. JV game last week, bases loaded 2 outs, dropped third strike at the catcher's feet. She picks up the ball steps across home plate without touching it and while straddling the bag throws into right field. I don't make assumptions about players who can't catch the 3rd strike

[IRISHMAFIA]

Stop and think about this.

If the catcher is that close to the plate with a runner approaching and there are no outs, why would the catcher be throwing the ball to 1B instead of protecting the plate?

And why wouldn't the runner be going full out which means there is no way contact is going to be avoided in the first two scenarios...and before anyone brings up "sliding" it is going to be irrelevant to an INT call without the C attempting to retire the runner.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Stop and think about this.

If the catcher is that close to the plate with a runner approaching and there are no outs, why would the catcher be throwing the ball to 1B instead of protecting the plate?

Does that really matter? Are we to make rulings on things like interference and obstruction based upon what a runner or fielder should have done from a smart baserunning or smart fielding perspective?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And why wouldn't the runner be going full out which means there is no way contact is going to be avoided in the first two scenarios...and before anyone brings up "sliding" it is going to be irrelevant to an INT call without the C attempting to retire the runner.

I don't think that absolves the runner from anything. Frankly, she probably shouldn't have run home in the first place if the ball was right there and the fielder could have easily tagged her. The fact that she made that choice and put herself in a position where she could easily violate ASA 8-7-P, NFHS 8-6-16c, etc., is her fault. After scoring, she cannot interfere, which is what she did.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Does that really matter? Are we to make rulings on things like interference and obstruction based upon what a fielder or runner should have done from a coach's perspective?

Yes. Should the runner not be permitted to attempt to advance because the catcher isn't smart enough to make the correct play?

I don't think that absolves the runner from anything. Frankly, she probably shouldn't have run home in the first place if the ball was right there and the fielder could have easily tagged her. The fact that she made that choice and put herself in a position where she could easily violate ASA 8-7-P, NFHS 8-6-16c, etc., is her fault. After scoring, she cannot interfere, which is what she did.

Okay, make that call. I'm not without some indication the player committed and act of interference

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Stop and think about this.

If the catcher is that close to the plate with a runner approaching and there are no outs, why would the catcher be throwing the ball to 1B instead of protecting the plate?

And why wouldn't the runner be going full out which means there is no way contact is going to be avoided in the first two scenarios...and before anyone brings up "sliding" it is going to be irrelevant to an INT call without the C attempting to retire the runner.

Fair points... so are you saying A and B are not INT? (And if so ... how to defend that call if it's protested?)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Fair points... so are you saying A and B are not INT? (And if so ... how to defend that call if it's protested?)

Obviously, this would all have to be something to be seen, but my response to the protest would be exactly what I was thinking at the time of the call, did not see or judge an act of interference occurred.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Obviously, this would all have to be something to be seen, but my response to the protest would be exactly what I was thinking at the time of the call, did not see or judge an act of interference occurred.

I honestly don't see how anyone could justify a runner who just scored colliding with a fielder trying to throw the ball to make a play on another runner as NOT being an act of interference.

Heck, using that narrow interpretation of "act", you could argue that a runner going from second to third who runs into F6 who is waiting on a ground ball as not being an act of interference. After all, she was simply running the bases.

Well, while running bases, there are certain expectations, by rule, that are levied on those runners. One of them is to not run into that F6 while she's trying to field that ground ball. Another is to not run into that F2 who is trying to throw out the BR.

Why would the OP be any different than a retired runner at second base running into the pivot person as she attempts to throw to first to complete the double play? For that matter, let's say that instead of it being an uncaught third strike in the OP, make it a batted ball with the bases loaded that hit off F1 and went back to home, and F2 fields it, steps on the plate to retire R1 going home, and then that retired R1 runs into F2 as F2 is throwing to first from the same locations as in the OP. Would those qualify as "acts" of interference?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I honestly don't see how anyone could justify a runner who just scored colliding with a fielder trying to throw the ball to make a play on another runner as NOT being an act of interference.

Heck, using that narrow interpretation of "act", you could argue that a runner going from second to third who runs into F6 who is waiting on a ground ball as not being an act of interference. After all, she was simply running the bases.

Well, while running bases, there are certain expectations, by rule, that are levied on those runners. One of them is to not run into that F6 while she's trying to field that ground ball. Another is to not run into that F2 who is trying to throw out the BR.

Why would the OP be any different than a retired runner at second base running into the pivot person as she attempts to throw to first to complete the double play? For that matter, let's say that instead of it being an uncaught third strike in the OP, make it a batted ball with the bases loaded that hit off F1 and went back to home, and F2 fields it, steps on the plate to retire R1 going home, and then that retired R1 runs into F2 as F2 is throwing to first from the same locations as in the OP. Would those qualify as "acts" of 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.

[UmpireErnie]

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

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.

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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Stop and think about this.

If the catcher is that close to the plate with a runner approaching and there are no outs, why would the catcher be throwing the ball to 1B instead of protecting the plate?

And why wouldn't the runner be going full out which means there is no way contact is going to be avoided in the first two scenarios...and before anyone brings up "sliding" it is going to be irrelevant to an INT call without the C attempting to retire the runner.

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).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

What is illegal about the runner's advancement to score and not break a leg while doing so

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

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.

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.

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.