The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 07:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
ASA Interference?

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?
__________________
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
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 08:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 414
Do you mean F5 ?, anyway lead runner it seems is out (the one who interfered), all others return unless forced to advance as B/R becomes a runner.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 09:15am
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck chopper View Post
Do you mean F5 ?, anyway lead runner it seems is out (the one who interfered), all others return unless forced to advance as B/R becomes a runner.
R3 in this case is the runner from first base. She ran into F4 as she was heading to second.
__________________
"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
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 09:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
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?
INT, R3 is out, R1 & R2 return to TOP, BR awarded 1st.
If ITUJ, R3 was deliberately preventing a DP, BR also out.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 11:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck chopper View Post
Do you mean F5 ?
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck chopper View Post
, anyway lead runner it seems is out (the one who interfered)
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck chopper View Post
, all others return unless forced to advance as B/R becomes a runner.
No.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 11:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Absent intent... this is nothing.

Which INT rule, exactly, are you guys using to rule interference here?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 11:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Absent intent... this is nothing.

Which INT rule, exactly, are you guys using to rule interference here?
Which ASA interference rule that requires intent are you using to say this is nothing?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 11:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
Which ASA interference rule that requires intent are you using to say this is nothing?
I'm saying this is not interference at all. Again, which rule would you say she broke here?

If, however, the runner ran into a fielder that already had the ball with the intent of preventing a double play, we have something different.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 11:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
I'm saying this is not interference at all. Again, which rule would you say she broke here?

If, however, the runner ran into a fielder that already had the ball with the intent of preventing a double play, we have something different.
I actually haven't answered Mike's question (yet). I was responding to you because you said it is nothing unless there was intent. I was wondering how you came to that.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 11:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
I actually haven't answered Mike's question (yet). I was responding to you because you said it is nothing unless there was intent. I was wondering how you came to that.
Fair enough.

There is only one possible rule this player may have broken, and you don't generally see it called when a player gets the ball immediately before contact... 8-7-Q (which is NOT part of the interference rule) applies if a runner remains upright and crashes into a fielder that has the ball - but it generally meant to be used when the fielder clearly had possession of the ball and the runner knew it... but tried to knock them over. I wouldn't use this rule here... but might not argue with a partner who did (at least, not until post-game ) The rule doesn't SAY intentionally... but in any rules discussions I've had at camps or clinics, "crashes" generally implies some intent on the runner's part.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 12:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
If presented with this situation live on the field, I have no doubt I would have ruled as Cecil stated, and the rule would be 8-7-J-1.

However, it is usually true that when Mike posts a situation, there is something requiring a bit more thought, and since this IS a rules discussion board, you do bring up a good point.

Nonetheless, I doubt the rules writers intended to create an unprotected gap between "attempting to field a batted ball" (J-1) and "attempting to throw the ball" (J-2).
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 12:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 648
I think the gap presented itself when she bobbled, then recovered the ball, making it no longer a case of fielding a batted ball. And since contact happened right after the recovery, she wasn't yet in the act of throwing either.

Am I warm?

Does the "step and a reach" aspect not enter into this situation?
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 01:19pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka View Post
I think the gap presented itself when she bobbled, then recovered the ball, making it no longer a case of fielding a batted ball. And since contact happened right after the recovery, she wasn't yet in the act of throwing either.

Am I warm?

Does the "step and a reach" aspect not enter into this situation?
The "step and reach" criterion applies to a fielder making an initial play under FED rules, and to a fielder who knocks a batted ball in front of her under NCAA rules. There is no "step and reach" that I'm aware of in ASA play.

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.
__________________
"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
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 01:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
...There is no "step and reach" that I'm aware of in ASA play...
Except by tradition!
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 06, 2015, 01:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
The "step and reach" criterion applies to a fielder making an initial play under FED rules, and to a fielder who knocks a batted ball in front of her under NCAA rules. There is no "step and reach" that I'm aware of in ASA play.

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.
Ding, ding, ding, IMO. The cited rule doesn't stipulate deflected by or from another player!!
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
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 05:54pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1