ASA Interference?

[IRISHMAFIA]

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?

[chuck chopper]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

Do you mean F5 ?

No.

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

, anyway lead runner it seems is out (the one who interfered)

No.

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

, all others return unless forced to advance as B/R becomes a runner.

No.

[MD Longhorn]

Absent intent... this is nothing.

Which INT rule, exactly, are you guys using to rule interference here?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[Dakota]

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).

[jmkupka]

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?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

...There is no "step and reach" that I'm aware of in ASA play...

Except by tradition!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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!!