Obstruction/Interference question

[default]

Was at an 18U ASA pool game this weekend, and had a runner on 2nd base with no outs. Batter popped up to the 1st basemen, and then ran into the first basement as she made the catch (in fair territory). She held on to the ball, but fell to the ground. The runner on 2nd base tagged up and went to 3rd base.

The ump called interference (or obstruction, can't remember which it was) on the batter, which seemed OK.

Then, the team in the field threw to 2nd base (runner had tagged and was standing on 3rd base). The ump called her out. They said it was their judgement that if the 1st baseman hadn't been knocked to the ground, she would have been able to have a play on the girl going to 3rd base, so she was called out.

The argument from the coach on the team hitting was that it should have been a dead ball situation, and the runner should have just been sent back to 2nd base.

Even after the two umps got together and discussed it, they stuck with it being their judgement that the 1st basemen would have had a play, and thus the girl was called out.

What's the right call here.

 

[default]

dead ball ....

 

[default]

We had a play that was eventually ruled obstruction two weeks ago.

Bases loaded two outs. Batted ball up the middle bounces off the pitcher and goes between the legs of the runner running from second to third and is fielded by the SS who was two feet behind the runner and does not attempt a throw.

Field umpire called runner out saying the ball hit her. Home plate and field umpire discuss play and call runner out for obstruction with the SS...
When questioned about the ball bouncing off the defender/pitcher 1st umpire stated pitcher was not considered a fielder on that play?

 

[default]

dead ball ....

But doesn't the umpire have the option to extend the out calls? Turning a double play is one that I think they can extend the call on. My arguement might have been that the runner would not have gone to third if the fielder was not on the ground - which was caused by the dead ball. What a tangled web we weave... And that is why I will never be an umpire...

 

[default]

you lost me when the girl ended up in the basement.

 

[default]

dead ball... that runner wouldn't be going to third. She would be returned to second.

Only continuation I think... would be runner on first.. ball hit.. runner goes standing up into second and gets drilled by the throw.

Double play is the call.

 

[default]

Now, in the situation describe in Post #1 ... only way I can see a continuation for a double play would be this.

If the runner on second took off for some reason on a fly ball to first.. caught by first baseman who in turns get knocked down by an obstructing runner.... then it is up to the umpire to decide if a thrown could have been made to second base by the 1st baseman to get that runner out because she has NOT tagged and is now a force out.

Then yes .. a double play.

for a tag up at second.. as explained ... no.. dead ball .. batter out and runner returned to second.

 

[default]

Okay, Quaker, while you are on a roll here with Obstruction/Interference .....

Runner on 1B, ground ball to 2nd baseman .... runner slows down and "obscures" ground ball from 2nd baseman but makes no contact with ball or fielder (we have seen this 1000's of times) ..... even though runner made no contact with ball, or fielder, nor did she deviate from a straight path to next base, the umpire calls interference on runner stating that runner intimidated fielder from charging a ball that she did get an out at first on. Net effect is a double play, 2 outs.

Guess he figured runner's "aggressiveness" mentally prevented fielder from charging and possibly going for lead runner at 2nd base?? Fielder made no real attempt to move into baserunner's path though, either??

Those Interference calls drive me nuts ... we are ALWAYS on the wrong end of them, and the rulings and judgments often vary from umpire to umpire, at least how they interpret and make these calls. Like the one I mention above ... while still other umpires have told us they would not make that Interference call unless the runner absolutely impedes the fielder .... (i.e. contact or near contact).

 

[default]

I wouldn't make that call personally myself. Seen runners jump over the ball on a full sprint and if the defensive player is not in that basepath fielding the ball.. then so be it.

I really don't personally like the rule of a defensive player and what is considered "fielding the ball"


To me ... and I can't call it this way in ASA .... there is a HUGE difference in fielding the ball ( set down and awating the ball as a defensive player in the runners basepath ) and going to the direction of the hit ball .. to then Field it.... and thinking as a defensive player that you have the right of way at ALL times.

Personally I think there is a huge difference in being set to field a ball and GOING in the direction to field a ball.

But, then again, I love baseball rules ( in this case) and some of the rules set forth for GIRLS softball is different.

 

[default]

But, then again, I love baseball rules ( in this case) and some of the rules set forth for GIRLS softball is different.

With respect to a runner interfering with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, there really isn't any difference between baseball or softball. And the ASA interference rules apply equally to all ages and sexes- boys, girls, adults, men or women.

 

[default]

Was at an 18U ASA pool game this weekend, and had a runner on 2nd base with no outs. Batter popped up to the 1st basemen, and then ran into the first basement as she made the catch (in fair territory). She held on to the ball, but fell to the ground. The runner on 2nd base tagged up and went to 3rd base.

The ump called interference (or obstruction, can't remember which it was) on the batter, which seemed OK.

Then, the team in the field threw to 2nd base (runner had tagged and was standing on 3rd base). The ump called her out. They said it was their judgement that if the 1st baseman hadn't been knocked to the ground, she would have been able to have a play on the girl going to 3rd base, so she was called out.

The argument from the coach on the team hitting was that it should have been a dead ball situation, and the runner should have just been sent back to 2nd base.

Even after the two umps got together and discussed it, they stuck with it being their judgement that the 1st basemen would have had a play, and thus the girl was called out.

What's the right call here.

The ball is immediately dead when the batter-runner interferes with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball. So it really doesn't matter if the other runner tagged up, or ran, or made it to third, or got tagged out...because the ball was already dead on the interference.

The only way the umpires can call two outs here is if the interference was judged as an attempt to prevent a double play. Maybe if the other runner had taken off on contact and was in jeopardy of being doubled off for leaving second base early, and would have been a dead duck without the interference, and the batter-runner had done something obvious, like go out of her way to contact F3...then, just maybe, the umpires could have judged a second out was prevented.

That doesn't seem to be the case here, since you said that the runner was tagging up on the catch. She must have been either on the base, or just stepping off it at the moment of the interference. I don't see a second out as being likely here.

The "play" that these umpires say was prevented never happened and is irrelevent...because the ball was already dead!

All I'd have on this one is the batter-runner out for interference, immediate dead ball, other runner back on second base.

 

[default]

With respect to a runner interfering with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, there really isn't any difference between baseball or softball. And the ASA interference rules apply equally to all ages and sexes- boys, girls, adults, men or women.

Maybe ASA boys baseball.. but no other sanction calls that.

ASA needs to explain and define "fielding the ball".

 

[default]

We had a play that was eventually ruled obstruction two weeks ago.

Bases loaded two outs. Batted ball up the middle bounces off the pitcher and goes between the legs of the runner running from second to third and is fielded by the SS who was two feet behind the runner and does not attempt a throw.

Field umpire called runner out saying the ball hit her. Home plate and field umpire discuss play and call runner out for obstruction with the SS...
When questioned about the ball bouncing off the defender/pitcher 1st umpire stated pitcher was not considered a fielder on that play?

Anytime a batted ball is deflected by a defensive player, if the ball subsequently hits a runner that runner is NOT out. The only way this runner would be out would be if she intentionally contacted the ball. If the runner is unavoidably hit, she's safe, live ball, play on.

The umpire that explained this to you seems to be confusing a different rule. on an batted ball that's NOT touched by a fielder, the pitcher is excluded from being one of the fielders that the ball either passed or didn't pass. A touched, or deflected ball is an entirely different animal...covered by an entirely different rule. A deflected ball can be one touched by ANY defensive player- including the pitcher.

Also, on a deflected ball, the runner can't be called for interference with a defensive player...again, unless the interference is intentional. When a batted ball is deflected, the ball with suddenly change course, and so might a fielder going after the ball. So the rules make an exception here and cut the runner some slack. A runner isn't expected to predict the unpredictable path that a deflected ball, or a fielder chasing it, might take. If the runner unavoidably contacts the ball or the fielder...it's not interference and the runner isn't called out.

 

[default]

I'd love to have umpires that understood the rule. Had two plays this weekend that I believe should have been called interference, and were not. One went our way, one didn't. Neither set of umpires understood the rule.

Batter bunts ball down first, 1st base coming in to field, is going down into fielding position, batter jumps over ball (in fair territory), 1st base dodges to right to avoid collision, fields ball, and throws late to first. Home plate says no interference because runner doesn't have to avoid fielder. We didn't get that call.

Runner on first (stealing), ball hit sharply towards 2nd on one-hop; 2nd base charging has glove out to field ball, runner jumps over ball, but hits glove with foot, 2nd misses ball. Field ump says there was no player-player contact, so no interference. That one went our way, and I'm not sure how the other coach didn't blow his lid. It was a 1-0 game at the time.

I think both sets got it wrong, because they both conversed after the coaches asked about the plays, and neither call was changed.

 

[default]

The ball is immediately dead when the batter-runner interferes with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball. So it really doesn't matter if the other runner tagged up, or ran, or made it to third, or got tagged out...because the ball was already dead on the interference.

The only way the umpires can call two outs here is if the interference was judged as an attempt to prevent a double play. Maybe if the other runner had taken off on contact and was in jeopardy of being doubled off for leaving second base early, and would have been a dead duck without the interference, and the batter-runner had done something obvious, like go out of her way to contact F3...then, just maybe, the umpires could have judged a second out was prevented.

That doesn't seem to be the case here, since you said that the runner was tagging up on the catch. She must have been either on the base, or just stepping off it at the moment of the interference. I don't see a second out as being likely here.

The "play" that these umpires say was prevented never happened and is irrelevent...because the ball was already dead!

All I'd have on this one is the batter-runner out for interference, immediate dead ball, other runner back on second base.

In the case of the play explained... dead ball return back to second the runner.

But, if for some odd reason she took off on the hit and was over by third base with coaches yelling at her to go back... batter runner hits the first baseman in fair territory.. and I feel that a play could have been made on the force back to second... if the runner wouldn't have ran over the first baseman in fair territory... then I got a double play.. if in my mind the first baseman would have had a play on the runner.

Judgement call of course.. But still there for the umpire's judgement

 

[default]

Maybe ASA boys baseball.. but no other sanction calls that.

ASA needs to explain and define "fielding the ball".

They do define it. See Rule 1, the definition of "a play".

If the fielder is standing in one spot, behind the baseline and waiting for the ball to come to her, the runner can run in front of the fielder. Same as in baseball.

If the fielder is moving in, as in charging the ball, the runner is in her way, and that causes the fielder to check up or alter her path to the ball, that is interference. Same rule and call as in baseball and I've made that call in baseball games plenty of times.

BTW...there's no such thing as "ASA baseball".

 

[default]

I'd love to have umpires that understood the rule. Had two plays this weekend that I believe should have been called interference, and were not. One went our way, one didn't. Neither set of umpires understood the rule.

Batter bunts ball down first, 1st base coming in to field, is going down into fielding position, batter jumps over ball (in fair territory), 1st base dodges to right to avoid collision, fields ball, and throws late to first. Home plate says no interference because runner doesn't have to avoid fielder. We didn't get that call.

Runner on first (stealing), ball hit sharply towards 2nd on one-hop; 2nd base charging has glove out to field ball, runner jumps over ball, but hits glove with foot, 2nd misses ball. Field ump says there was no player-player contact, so no interference. That one went our way, and I'm not sure how the other coach didn't blow his lid. It was a 1-0 game at the time.

I think both sets got it wrong, because they both conversed after the coaches asked about the plays, and neither call was changed.

You got two explanations on two different calls that have ZERO bearing with respect to the actual playing rules.

On the first one: The runner doesn't have to avoid a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball? Umpire needs to read the definition of interference! The runner most certainly does have to avoid the fielder.

On the second one: So, runners can legally kick the glove of a fielder fielding a batted ball? Hogwash!

 

[default]

In baseball, in other sanctions.. it is not interference. USSSA does have boys baseball. The act of fielding the ball and going to go field the ball is two different things in many baseball leagues.. They don't play that rule in many associations like Junior AAA and I can't think right now of the other one...AA** something.

Take for instance. Runner of first.. Shot hit 3 ft inside the bag. Runner on the way to second and immediately has to jump over the ball after their first or second step and first baseman right behind..

Is it now the runners fault and that runner is called out on a bang, bang hit/play because the first baseman didn't see the ball. Of course not.. But put it in the middle of the field and it is for ASA.

 

[default]

In the case of the play explained... dead ball return back to second the runner.

But, if for some odd reason she took off on the hit and was over by third base with coaches yelling at her to go back... batter runner hits the first baseman in fair territory.. and I feel that a play could have been made on the force back to second... if the runner wouldn't have ran over the first baseman in fair territory... then I got a double play.. if in my mind the first baseman would have had a play on the runner.

Judgement call of course.. But still there for the umpire's judgement

The actual rule says that the interference must be "an attempt to prevent a double play" before you can rule the second out. So that should be part of your judgment- not just that a second out was available, but that whatever the interfering runner did was designed to prevent it.

I might tend to give the defense the benefit of the doubt, but before I do I'm going to need to see something from the runner more than just advancing straight to the base she's going to and happening to bump into the fielder.

Two outs are possible on this one, but if your judgment is grounded in the actual playing rule it's neither automatic or very likely.

 

[default]

If I felt she could have caught the ball and then turned to make a force out back to second.. then it is judgement.. It is never automatic.. but it left up to the umpire to make that judgement. If the runner is only 1/2 way back to second when the first baseman caught the ball and was ran over... then there is a high probability a play could have been made in my eyes.

Double play