The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 01:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
...What's interesting here is rule 8-7-J-4, where a runner who intentionally interferes with a defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with a deflected batted ball is still ruled out. Does this situation involve a deflected batted ball? And does the fact that Mike said R3 made no attempt to avoid imply intent? This would be the only way I can see to rule interference by ASA rule.
I wouldn't see this as a deflected ball. Note the OP specifically says F4 did not step forward or backward, so there was nothing unanticipatable about the fielder's movements (like there could be with a deflected ball).
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 02:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
Ding, ding, ding, IMO. The cited rule doesn't stipulate deflected by or from another player!!
True, but I don't see intent (implied or actual) in the OP.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 03:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
True, but I don't see intent (implied or actual) in the OP.
In my view, the reason intent remains in the deflected ball rule is to account for the unpredictable nature of where a deflected ball will go.

That does not apply here.

Where does it state that if the fielder does not field the ball perfectly that the protection disappears? The only impact on the runner is it took the fielder a bit longer than it otherwise would have to glove the ball securely. The fielder was there in one spot all along. The runner merely chose to not alter her path.

It seems to me you either apply the fielding a batted ball rule or if you choose to apply the deflected ball rule, the fact that the runner made no attempt to avoid the fielder is enough to rule intent.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 03:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
The deflected ball rule kind of implies that it's NOT interference unless the runner does something intentional to interfere. I think we can throw that one out here.

The issue is that the rules protect a fielder while she's fielding a ball. The rules protect a fielder while she's throwing a ball. And the rules prevent a runner from interfering with the actual throw.

The fielder in the OP is doing none of these things.

You ask, "Where does it state that if the fielder does not field the ball perfectly that the protection disappears?" It does not state that. But the rules do not protect a fielder who has already fielded a ball... unless they are throwing that ball.

The runner in the OP has not broken any of the 4 parts of the interference rule.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 05:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
...But the rules do not protect a fielder who has already fielded a ball... unless they are throwing that ball...
Runners on 2nd and 3rd. Infield ground ball fielded by F6, who is standing there checking R1 to hold her up from scoring and has not started any throwing motion anywhere. R2 runs into her, distracting / disrupting her enough that R1 scores, R2 is safe on 3rd, and BR is safe on 1st.

You got nothin'?
__________________
Tom

Last edited by Dakota; Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:24pm.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 06:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 07:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?
I don't do ASA. Please share.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 07:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 257
Crash. Plan and simple. No intent needed. A runner cannot run into a fielder in possession of the ball. In this scenario this is only an out.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 11:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Has anyone actually read 8.7.Q?
The fielder has the ball, and the runner remains upright and runs into her, this is an out for interference. All applicable rules apply to other runners as well.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 11:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Bases juiced, no outs.

Ground ball to F4 who bobbles, but gains possession of the ball prior to R3 running into and knocking her down. No tag was made, but all runners reached their next base safely before the defender could recover and make a play?

For the sake of this discussion:
  • there was no attempt by R3 to avoid the F4 who did not step forward or backward while gaining possession of the ball
  • No runner reached the next base prior to the collision
  • At the time of the collision, there were multiple opportunities to record an out
Is this interference? What is the result of the play?
What about this same play in NFHS? To me this is a more complex argument in the NFHS book than it is in ASA. What rule would apply to the NFHS game on the same situation?
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 05:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja View Post
What about this same play in NFHS? To me this is a more complex argument in the NFHS book than it is in ASA. What rule would apply to the NFHS game on the same situation?
Don't care, not the point of the question
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 07:04am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcblue View Post
Crash. Plan and simple. No intent needed. A runner cannot run into a fielder in possession of the ball. In this scenario this is only an out.
It's not that plain and simple. By RS #13, a crash involves a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to apply a tag. In this scenario, the fielder was not attempting to tag the runner, so I don't believe you can call this a crash. If TPTB want to rule this an out (as well as the alternative scenario that Tom mentioned with a runner running into a fielder who has the ball and is looking at another runner to freeze him/her near the base before turning and throwing to retire the BR at first), they should modify RS #13 so that it doesn't sound like crash interference only applies when a fielder is waiting to tag the oncoming runner.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 07:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
Don't care, not the point of the question
While thank you for your opinion, now if anyone else who isn't going to be that guy, would like to discuss it, feel free.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 07:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja View Post
While thank you for your opinion, now if anyone else who isn't going to be that guy, would like to discuss it, feel free.
Or you can start your own thread for NFHS scenario and ruling.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Thu May 07, 2015, 07:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
It's not that plain and simple. By RS #13, a crash involves a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to apply a tag. In this scenario, the fielder was not attempting to tag the runner, so I don't believe you can call this a crash. If TPTB want to rule this an out (as well as the alternative scenario that Tom mentioned with a runner running into a fielder who has the ball and is looking at another runner to freeze him/her near the base before turning and throwing to retire the BR at first), they should modify RS #13 so that it doesn't sound like crash interference only applies when a fielder is waiting to tag the oncoming runner.
I'll stick with the rule (which apparently no one wants to read as requested) over a RS any day. If you want to live by the RS, you would be condoning collisions as noted in this scenario without penalty.

Coach: Blue, that runner just barreled over my player.
Umpire: Yep.
Coach: But she had the ball.
Umpire: Yep.
Coach: Rule 8.7.Q clearly states the runner cannot do that.
Umpire: Yep, but the RS says it is okay if the defender is not attempting to tag that runner, so all is good here, coach.

Yeah, I dare you to have that conversation
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interference or No? JJ Baseball 2 Thu Sep 06, 2012 01:21pm
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
Runner interference versus umpire interference Jay R Baseball 1 Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm
Interference at First goldcoastump Softball 6 Sat Aug 28, 2004 01:40am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1