default
Member
We had a call in the bottom of the 7th (we were visiting team, leading by two at the time) that broke our backs. Runner going from 1st to 2nd made contact with our fielder (unless she is lying to us, which I highly doubt) but whether there was contact or not she CLEARLY impeded the second baseperson's access to the ball. Blue made no interference call and when they conferred the only thing they asked each other was whether they saw contact.
Supplement No. 33 in the ASA rules (and it was an ASA tournament) says that a runner interferes with the fielder when she "impedes, hinders or confuses" a defensive player when attempting to execute a play. Right there, "confuses" suggests to us that physical contact is not necessary. And the next sentence says interference "may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual distraction, or any type of distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution of a play."
I know that in the law, when something "may" include a listed series of actions, that is a NON-EXCLUSIVE list, which is to say that the fact interference may consist of "physical contact" doesn't mean there HAS to be physical contact and the rest of the "may be"s in Supplement No. 33 make it pretty clear that there can be other types of distractions.
So: if the runner is directly in front of our second baseperson in the shortest path between our second baseperson and the ball (within maybe a 1.5 to 2 foot depth), can't that be interference because the fielder was obviously impeded in making the play?
Clearly with a play to the right side, we had a 95% shot at getting the runner. Instead, because the umpires fixated on whether there was contact, we ended up with no outs and runners on first and second.
The sad thing is, the lesson we learned, and we frankly have to tell our players, is that the fielder has to take out the runner in getting to the ball.
Supplement No. 33 in the ASA rules (and it was an ASA tournament) says that a runner interferes with the fielder when she "impedes, hinders or confuses" a defensive player when attempting to execute a play. Right there, "confuses" suggests to us that physical contact is not necessary. And the next sentence says interference "may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual distraction, or any type of distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution of a play."
I know that in the law, when something "may" include a listed series of actions, that is a NON-EXCLUSIVE list, which is to say that the fact interference may consist of "physical contact" doesn't mean there HAS to be physical contact and the rest of the "may be"s in Supplement No. 33 make it pretty clear that there can be other types of distractions.
So: if the runner is directly in front of our second baseperson in the shortest path between our second baseperson and the ball (within maybe a 1.5 to 2 foot depth), can't that be interference because the fielder was obviously impeded in making the play?
Clearly with a play to the right side, we had a 95% shot at getting the runner. Instead, because the umpires fixated on whether there was contact, we ended up with no outs and runners on first and second.
The sad thing is, the lesson we learned, and we frankly have to tell our players, is that the fielder has to take out the runner in getting to the ball.