Batter runner/ 1st baseman contact

[Little Jimmy]

Utrip tourney but any rule set is good. My question is about a play that didn't happen, but I wondered what would have been the ruling if a different scenario took place. This is what did happen...

Batter hits a hard spinner about half way up the first base line in foul territory. It spins hard as F3 runs down the line. As BR is approaches, F3 touches ball in foul territory. Nothing but a foul ball.

But what if F3 picked up the ball in fair territory in this scenario and instead of simply waiting to put a tag on BR, she turns and attempts to beat the BR to 1st base. And as BR attempts to outrun F3, there is contact of the feet, with F3 falling and BR reaching 1st safely?

Do you have basic interference? Did she "illegally" impede F3? Doesn't the BR have a right to attempt to beat F3 in a footrace to the bag? Am I overthinking everything?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

Utrip tourney but any rule set is good. My question is about a play that didn't happen, but I wondered what would have been the ruling if a different scenario took place. This is what did happen...

Batter hits a hard spinner about half way up the first base line in foul territory. It spins hard as F3 runs down the line. As BR is approaches, F3 touches ball in foul territory. Nothing but a foul ball.

But what if F3 picked up the ball in fair territory in this scenario and instead of simply waiting to put a tag on BR, she turns and attempts to beat the BR to 1st base. And as BR attempts to outrun F3, there is contact of the feet, with F3 falling and BR reaching 1st safely?

Do you have basic interference? Did she "illegally" impede F3? Doesn't the BR have a right to attempt to beat F3 in a footrace to the bag? Am I overthinking everything?

My opinion, you are overthinking the situation. I have no call in this play, much like a pass interference or no pass interference play in football. Just because the feet tangle, doesn't mean pass interference.

The BR has a duty to run to first base, and as long as she is not going outside the 3 foot allowable distance (out of the base path), then she has a right (and a duty) to run directly to the base.

I am also not awarding the defense for making a play that puts herself in jeopardy of losing control of the ball or being knocked down.

Now if there is an obvious push or malicious contact then we have an issue and the rulebook penalty (out, or out and ejection) will be applied as needed.

[Multiple Sports]

Incidental contact....no intent no call.....

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Unless I am completely wrong, I am reading the description of the play as follows: When F3 gains control of the ball in Fair Territory, I am assuming that F3 is between the B/R and 1B. If this is the case then B/R has committed interference whether or not the contact was intentional or not intentional. Intent is not required for interference to occur.

MTD, Sr.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Unless I am completely wrong, I am reading the description of the play as follows: When F3 gains control of the ball in Fair Territory, I am assuming that F3 is between the B/R and 1B. If this is the case then B/R has committed interference whether or not the contact was intentional or not intentional. Intent is not required for interference to occur.

MTD, Sr.

I think you are completely wrong.

Which "a batter-runner is out when..." subsection do you think this qualifies as? I just went through A-N one at a time, and this situation is not mentioned.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

Am I overthinking everything?

Probably, but challenging questions are our sustenance, even if SWP.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I think you are completely wrong.

Which "a batter-runner is out when..." subsection do you think this qualifies as? I just went through A-N one at a time, and this situation is not mentioned.

MD:

Why is it not interference? If F3 is between 1B and the B/R, how is not interference for B/R to trip (intentional or not) F3 in order to reach 1B before F3 does?

MTD, Sr.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

MD:

Why is it not interference? If F3 is between 1B and the B/R, how is not interference for B/R to trip (intentional or not) F3 in order to reach 1B before F3 does?

MTD, Sr.

What was the act of interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

MD:

Why is it not interference? If F3 is between 1B and the B/R, how is not interference for B/R to trip (intentional or not) F3 in order to reach 1B before F3 does?

MTD, Sr.

Because it's not Interference. It is not mentioned at all in that section.

Honestly, even if she pushed the fielder away from her intentionally while trying to beat her to the bag, she doesn't break any of the rules in the rulebook. She doesn't meet any of the conditions in the rulebook for which we are to rule her out. Assuming she doesn't crash into the fielder (and even that is only listed under RUNNER - and not Batter-Runner) - I'll ask again... what rule did she break? Which line in the "The Batter-Runner is out when..." or even in the "The runner is out when..." section(s) would you say this fits into?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

...Honestly, even if she pushed the fielder away from her intentionally while trying to beat her to the bag, she doesn't break any of the rules in the rulebook....

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Not saying I wouldn't try to figure out a way to get this out...

But compare this to a pitcher or catcher or fielding a ball and racing a runner to the plate. Runner, seeing the fielder about to collide with them, non-maliciously tries to push their way to the plate. This would not be interference... at least not a violation of any of the rules that are listed as an out in the interference rule. There's not even one of those rules that could be semantically stretched to get an out in a case like this.

[Little Jimmy]

I too could not find any interference rule that applies. And even though this play didn't actually materialize, there were quite a few times in this game where the expected didn't always happen.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not saying I wouldn't try to figure out a way to get this out...

But compare this to a pitcher or catcher or fielding a ball and racing a runner to the plate. Runner, seeing the fielder about to collide with them, non-maliciously tries to push their way to the plate. This would not be interference... at least not a violation of any of the rules that are listed as an out in the interference rule. There's not even one of those rules that could be semantically stretched to get an out in a case like this.

So, if a runner intentionally A-Rods the fielder's glove to knock the ball out of it on a tag attempt, you wouldn't call an out for interference because the interference rule doesn't list this as such? Couldn't you go back to the basic definition of Interference and state that the runner clearly hindered the fielder attempting to execute a play, which, in turn, is defined as an attempt to retire an offensive player?

I'm not suggesting that there was interference in the OP. But when a runner obviously shows intent to grab, push, trip, or slap at a defender who has possession of the ball and is heading toward that runner or the bag, I don't see how this could be construed as "just softball."

[MD Longhorn]

I've mentioned this before... but I'm not interested in arguing with you when you tell me what I would do in a situation and then argue with that. I didn't say the words you're putting into my mouth.

As to "runner clearly hindered the fielder attempting to execute a play" ... find me the rule that says that. "Execute a play" is not in the book in the "the BR is out..." or the "the runner is out..." sections.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

As to "runner clearly hindered the fielder attempting to execute a play" ... find me the rule that says that. "Execute a play" is not in the book in the "the BR is out..." or the "the runner is out..." sections.

No, it's not. But it is in the ASA Rule 1 Definition of Interference:

The act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play.

Similar language is in RS #33.

And that's what I would use if I saw a runner or batter-runner do something intentional to keep the fielder from attempting to tag him/her or the base he/she is going to.