The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)

- - B/r int (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/99462-b-r-int.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkupka (Post 957386)

Altor, guarantee this same group would be calling both outs on that play.
They adhere to the philosophy of "we get paid for strikes and outs".

Using that philosophy, how do they prevent (or otherwise deal with) defenders intentionally throwing the ball to hit the already out batter on her way to 1st?

Quote:

Originally Posted by prab (Post 957473)

Using that philosophy, how do they prevent (or otherwise deal with) defenders intentionally throwing the ball to hit the already out batter on her way to 1st?

...with an ejection.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkupka (Post 957298)

Heard a play being discussed at a clinic today, didn't agree with the ruling.

R1 on 1B, 1 out. R1 off with the pitch. Batter hits it straight up. F2 makes the catch in front of the plate & fires to 1B to double up R1. Ball hits B2 in the helmet & goes into DBT. They have a retired runner interfering and we have 3 outs.

I say if B2 is in the running lane, she's done nothing wrong and R1 gets 3B.

This reminds me of a discussion from a couple years ago with a fellow umpire.

R1 at second, B2 at the plate, 1 out. Full count on the batter. Called strike 3 on B2 for the second out. R1 was going on the pitch. Catcher comes up throwing to 3rd and the ball hits B2. The ruling was interference by a retired runner, R1 is called out for the third out. This brings up the disappearing batter argument.

My take, and the way I would rule on both of these plays (the OP and the discussion above), is that the retired player did nothing wrong, and the defensive player made the mistake by hitting the retired player with a throw. Now if the retired player does something to interfere then it is a different situation.

Personally this is where we need to have some common sense in umpiring.

My call, in your situation, would be INT if the batter committed an act, such as walking toward her 1B dugout, and stepped into the throw. Just standing there wondering why she looked at strike 3 wouldn't be enough for INT.

I'm basing this on "batter" rules, and not on "retired batter"rules. Please let me know of I'm wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkupka (Post 957353)

Thanks guys, Mike, do you concur that the running lane is not a deciding factor in this play (because the running lane rule only pertains to retiring the B/R)? 8.2.E doesn't mention that detail.
The verbiage does read "interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base", I do infer that to mean "the throw to put out the B/R", as opposed to "a throw at 1B"

No matter when scenario, the running lane applies only to the BR and a defender receiving a throw at 1B. The minute that ball is caught, the BR no longer exists. So, you now have a retired runner question about INT. The 3' lane would be irrelevant to the point of the rule and the umpire needs to determine if the offensive player committed an act of interference and apply 8.7.P, if necessary