Obstruction/Interference question

[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.

I don't know who is telling you this would be interference in ASA softball. Whoever it is, they are wrong!

Rule 8-8-A: A runner is NOT out...When a runner runs behind or in front of the fielder and outside the basepath to avoid interfering with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

I can't think of any material difference on how this play would be called in either baseball or softball. As long as the runner is running to the next base, it's perfectly legal to pass in front of the fielder or jump over the ball.

If the fielder is charging the ball, and the runner's presence causes the fielder to check up or alter her path to the ball, then it is interference. If it doesn't...then it's not.

 

[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

Yes, but did you judge whatever the interfering runner did to be a willful, actual, intentional attempt to prevent that second out? Because if you didn't...then you can't call the second out.

The rule doesn't say to call a double play "if a second out might be possible". It says that the interference must be judged as "an attempt to prevent the second out". It requires some purposeful act by the interfering runner that is designed to prevent the double play. Otherwise, you just put the other runner back on her last attained base.

 

[default]

I personally think the ASA rule of a defensive player going forward to get a ground ball... has preference over a runner that is going to a base in a direct line is crock.

If the defensive player is in a squat position "FIELDING" the ball.. that is one thing. If a defensive player is on the move to go "field" the ball... ASA rules is the runner must give way to the defensive player... even if she is just moving forward still .

Dumbest rule I ever heard of actually.

I seen in one game.. the ball is hit in nowhere land between first base and pitcher's plate and about to die rolling and the second baseman was running forward and "checked up".. as you say.

This ASA umpire called the runner out that was going to second... all because the defensive player ( who I doubt would ever have gotten to the ball to make a play ) stopped moving forward.

People and coaches went off the deep end.

That has to be the dumbest rule I ever heard in ASA.. there is a difference in "fielding the ball" and "going to go field the ball ". If that was the case, if I was a coach. I'd put a defensive second baseman two steps back of the direct path from first and second and when the girl bunted the ball.... I'd step forward and have my defensive player act like she was going to the ball.

That's the problem with ASA. It doesn't give a great defination of fielding the ball... so they just make a "general" statement and give everything to the defense.

 

[default]

Yes, but did you judge whatever the interfering runner did to be a willful, actual, intentional attempt to prevent that second out? Because if you didn't...then you can't call the second out.

The rule doesn't say to call a double play "if a second out might be possible". It says that the interference must be judged as "an attempt to prevent the second out". It requires some purposeful act by the interfering runner that is designed to prevent the double play. Otherwise, you just put the other runner back on her last attained base.

Don't you think Bretman.. the act of running a fielder over is a willful act by the runner?

 

[default]

Don't you think Bretman.. the act of running a fielder over is a willful act by the runner?

Not necessarily. Could be, but maybe not. I've seen plenty of runners who were so intent on reaching the base that they didn't have any idea where the fielder was- and certainly had no idea what a runner on the opposite side of the field was doing that might or might not have exposed that other runner to a double play!

You could even have a runner try to go around the fielder to avoid her, but still make some contact by accident. It would still be interference, but I wouldn't call that "an obvious attempt to prevent a double play".

Personally, I'm going to need to see something...some action, some act...by the runner other than "plain old-fashioned interference" that leads me to think it was done with the intent to prevent a double play before I call two outs.

 

[default]

That's bull.

You heard it people.. just teach your runner to run over the first baseman when your runner on second s c r e w e d up and ran on a fly ball to third. It'll be dead ball and your runner on second is saved... :yahoo::yahoo:

 

[default]

I personally think the ASA rule of a defensive player going forward to get a ground ball... has preference over a runner that is going to a base in a direct line is crock..

But that's not exactly the rule.

"Moving toward a ground ball" is certainly part of the act of fielding a ground ball. Why wouldn't it be? And it's the same in baseball or any other softball rule set.

On the example you gave, if the fielder stopped moving toward the ball and the ball was still far away from the fielder, then the umpire can judge that the fielder was NOT in the act of fielding the ball. Maybe you did see an umpire call it that way before, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was the right call.

 

[default]

That's bull.

You heard it people.. just teach your runner to run over the first baseman when your runner on second s c r e w e d up and ran on a fly ball to third. It'll be dead ball and your runner on second is saved... :yahoo::yahoo:

Did you actually read the rule? The rule says that the interference must be judged as "an attempt to prevent a double play". "An attempt" requires some willful, deliberate act by the runner.

Running into the fielder might be judged as such an act. But it's very easy to imagine many situations where it would not be.

 

[default]

I agree it was the absolutely the wrong call. So did about 50 other people.. but he relied on the RULE he was taught and the second baseman being "check up".. so to say.

So now, it is the option now.. for an umpire NOT to call that. Same things.. the defensive player "checked".

The act of fielding the ball is that. Fielding the ball. Running in the direction so you can "field the ball".. which means you have to get there and squat down .. can never be the same as being squat down to field the ball.

That is what is so silly about that rule in ASA. Says one thing.. but gives the umpire a "judgement" in whether she could have gotten to the ball, too.

This is why so many ASA umpires are calling the same thing differently.

So what can be defined as FAR AWAY ????

 

[default]

Did you actually read the rule? The rule says that the interference must be judged as "an attempt to prevent a double play". "An attempt" requires some willful, deliberate act by the runner.

Running into the fielder might be judged as such an act. But it's very easy to imagine many situations where it would not be.

She ran into her for goodness sake. In fair ground to boot. Not that it mattered if it was in fair ground or not.... but that pretty much tells me the batter/runner was wrong and could be deemed "willful" but most of all.. if an umpire thinks the first baseman could have caught the ball and threw to second for a double play.. had she not been ran over by the batter.... then you have to give the defense a double play status.

I mean.. coaches could teach " just act like you accidently slipped and stumbled and run over the first baseman" and you can save our runner.

To stop thoughts like that.. and keep the girls safe.. you call an out at second if you think a double play could have been had.

 

[default]

That is what is so silly about that rule in ASA. Says one thing.. but gives the umpire a "judgement" in whether she could have gotten to the ball, too.

The ASA rule isn't any different than others. I don't know why you would think that ASA has a different rule or interprets this differently than anybody else. They don't.

Can you post any rule from any other softball or baseball association that is different than the ASA rule?

Now, you want to talk about silly...

Let's say we can't judge the fielder's movement toward the ball as part of her effort to "field the ball". Are you saying that a runner should only be guilty of interference if the fielder is planted in one spot and waiting for the ball to get to her? Or only if the ball is about to enter the fielder's glove?

So...if the fielder is on the move to get the ball...the runner could just throw a block in front of her to keep her from getting to it? That's just nuts.

 

[default]

I don't have rule book next to my computer Bretman like you. They are in my ball bag.

Fielding the ball and moving to go field the ball should be two different things.

To field the ball.. you should be in a squating position ready to field the ball coming towards your glove..... not going to it.

Let's take for instance this... it's a slow roller in that nowhere land between first base and the pitcher's plate... What stops the second baseman from sitting in the baseline in a squat psoition.. for a ball that is never going to reach her in the first place and the runner having to go around her. Then the pitcher picks up the ball and throws the runner out at second for a force. Is that right. But, with ASA rules it is OK to do that isn't it. She is FIELDING THE BALL afterall.. even though it is never going to get to her rolling on the ground.

What gives that defense player anymore right to that basepath if she is still on the move TO FIELD the ball or sitting in the runners base path waiting on a ball that is never going to get to her. Is that an umpire's judgement call there?

If that is the case, if I was a coach.. I'd move my defensive player to step up and squat in the baseline and wait for the ball..... it might not come to her.. but hell, she "fielding the ball" according to ASA rules.

As for the runner going to second... nobody said a runner could throw a block. She is normally running to the bag in a normal fashion. What stops the fielder from running beside her on a hit up the middle and then step in the basepath as a defensive player and get run over looking for an automatic out. What did that runner do wrong, Bret ?

Heck the rules confuse the umpires of ASA as they are all over the place with. Obviously, the people who teach rule interpetations can't get it right.. or get it right in the umpires mind. For the last four years, you see these questions on the OFC every single week. If the umpires can't understand it.. how are the player or the coaches ?

They should make the rule like the blocking the plate rule. Can't be there unless you have the ball or the ball is close to you as a fielder. When they leave so much up to the judgment of the umpire... you get what you get.

But the head teacher for ASA is the Head Teacher for OHSAA... go figure

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[default]

Let's take for instance this... it's a slow roller in that nowhere land between first base and the pitcher's plate... What stops the second baseman from sitting in the baseline in a squat psoition.. for a ball that is never going to reach her in the first place and the runner having to go around her. Then the pitcher picks up the ball and throws the runner out at second for a force. Is that right. But, with ASA rules it is OK to do that isn't it. She is FIELDING THE BALL afterall.. even though it is never going to get to her rolling on the ground.

You answered your own question. If the ball is "never going to reach her in the first place", then she is NOT in the act of fielding the ball!

I really don't understand which ASA rule you think supports calling interference here. You keep refering to "the ASA rule" as if they have some strange rule or interpretation that is different from the rest of the softball world. They don't.

If anything, ASA defines this better than most do by defining "a play" as an opportunity for a defensive player to retire an offensive player. The fielder you describe- where the ball never gets to her and another fielder actually fields it- has no opportunity to "get an out". So nothing is being interfered with.

You've had all night to walk to your ball bag...ample opportunity to show us which rule you think you're talking about!

What gives that defense player anymore right to that basepath if she is still on the move TO FIELD the ball or sitting in the runners base path waiting on a ball that is never going to get to her. Is that an umpire's judgement call there?

Sure, it's a judgment call. Same as with any other baseball or softball rule set.

If that is the case, if I was a coach.. I'd move my defensive player to step up and squat in the baseline and wait for the ball..... it might not come to her.. but hell, she "fielding the ball" according to ASA rules.

Still scratching my head on what ASA rule you think is different from all the rest.

As for the runner going to second... nobody said a runner could throw a block. She is normally running to the bag in a normal fashion. What stops the fielder from running beside her on a hit up the middle and then step in the basepath as a defensive player and get run over looking for an automatic out. What did that runner do wrong, Bret ?

Are you serious? If the fielder moves into the runners path and her actions are NOT part of her effort to field the ball, but designed to impede the runner, then the fielder has committed obstruction. That should be incentive enough not to do something stupid like that!

Heck the rules confuse the umpires of ASA as they are all over the place with. Obviously, the people who teach rule interpetations can't get it right.. or get it right in the umpires mind. For the last four years, you see these questions on the OFC every single week. If the umpires can't understand it.. how are the player or the coaches?

The rule is what it is and it's no different from all the others. Now you're talking about the judgment of the individual umpires. But there's no one I'm aware of who is teaching umpires to judge this the way you say it is being taught.

They should make the rule like the blocking the plate rule. Can't be there unless you have the ball or the ball is close to you as a fielder. When they leave so much up to the judgment of the umpire... you get what you get.

Now you're going off the rails...

Are you saying that a fielder can block a base if the ball is "close to being caught" and before the fielder actually posseses the ball? Nothing could be further from the truth! Most sanctioning bodies removed the "about to receive the ball" exception to their obstruction rules seven or eight years ago. No, fielders cannot block bases if the ball is "close to them". They can only block if they actually have possession of the ball.

I would suggest a trip to the ball bag...