|
|||
U3K and Interference
Some of you may have seen this on the Facebook group page....
ASA: (this play actually happened today) Right handed batter. Dropped third strike hits the dirt ricochets off of the catcher's leg guard and clips the BR's heal as she's running up the baseline (just outside the left handed batters box). Ruling? (Please site a rule #)
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important! |
|
|||
ASA rule 8.2-F(6); BR is out when....
Your challenge is to determine if the BR committed an act that interfered. It should be absolute if the BR contacts the ball; maybe not so much if the ball contacts the unknowing BR. That said, it is not a defense that the BR was unknowing, or contact was inadvertent, or even that you want to assign the misplay to the catcher (hey, the BATTER made it 3K, right??). The BR may not interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play on that ball; period. Judgement is required.
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
|
|||
Quote:
Is the last sentence about the first sentence? Do the bold parts make the OP facts ("clips the BR's heal as she's running"), clearly INT? Does that conflict with "maybe not so much if the ball contacts the unknowing BR"?
__________________
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Quote:
The OP didn't tell us anything that would support any ruling besides interference.
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
|
|||
I was one of those who didn't like the rule for the longest time and tried to rationalize not making those calls...until this past year.
Then I came to the realization (epiphany, if you will) that U3K has the same status as a fair batted ball, such as forces are effect, etc. Any contact with the ball by an offensive player not in contact with a base is INT. TWP but an interesting twist. R1 on 3B. U3K caroms off the catchers shin guard and is rolling up the 3B line towards F5 who was anticipating a bunt. R1 attempts to steal home and makes contact with the ball. I don't have a rule citation to back me up, but I am have INT on R1.
__________________
Tony |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
IMO, No. For U2K, or even a non-strike, I believe you'd have to judge some form of "intent", as in INT with a thrown ball. U3K is unique in this sense.
__________________
Tony |
|
|||
I do not believe intent would be necessary. It is a live ball, the offense has a responsibility to avoid interfering with the defense's opportunity to make a play
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Quote:
If a batted ball is contacted by a player in fair territory before it passes a fielder (or etc) no judgment is required this is always interference by rule. If a misplayed ball is contacted by a player who is attempting to advance or return to a base then judgment is required as to whether the player interfered. Judgment is not required as to intent, this is not a thrown ball. Contacting the ball is not in and of itself interference but if the player hits the ball and this interferes with a play then it is. For example, if no fielder were anywhere near the ball and the contact didn't make it harder to make a play, play on. If the ball hits the player, then we have nothing unless the player did something to interfere. This would apply the same way on an U2K or U3K on the runner coming home from third. If strike three ricochets out of the catchers glove into the batter, that's nothing. If it ricochets out of the catchers glove in front of the batter and he kicks it that's interference. Not because it's interference by rule to touch the ball, but because he did something, kicked the ball, that interfered with the catcher playing it. On an U2K in the same circumstance, we'd only have interference if something is happening on the bases that was interfered with by the kick. If the kick doesn't interfere with anything but still keeps the catcher from getting the ball, kill the play before somebody starts running. (This one really confuses me.) |
|
|||
No, not necessarily. The ball simply hitting the B/BR is not necessarily INT. The B/BR must commit an act that prevents the defense from making a play.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Similar sit in my one and only real men's FP game. Brick backstop, outside pitch swung at for 3K, gets by F2 untouched, and ricochets back into the batter before he took his second step.
But his first step was an act which put him in the path of the ball. So I had an out. Lots o' angry offense players. BTW, it was my only game because the mens FP league was ending |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Are you saying that this isn't interference because his description doesn't include it preventing the defense from making a play or because even if it had running to first and getting hit by a bad bounce is not an act of inteference?
|
Bookmarks |
|
|
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 |
Another Interference ? | debeau | Softball | 1 | Thu Nov 02, 2006 01:19pm |
interference??? | ggk | Baseball | 6 | Wed Jun 28, 2006 09:16am |
Runner interference versus umpire interference | Jay R | Baseball | 1 | Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm |