Runner interference question

[default]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong "Bretman would be good" But if a runner alters the path for the defender to the ball does that qualify? Ump said no she has to run into the girl.

What's to stop coaches from saying, Ok just plow her over?? Doesn't sound right to me...

 

[default]

If the defensive player is making a play, the runner must avoid contact. In every code of softball that I officiate, if the runner intentionally makes contact with a fielder, whether the fielder is in her base path or not, the runner is out and if the contact is malicious, the runner may be ejected.

Sounds like a basebball interpretation,

 

[default]

Yeah, but the feilder had to deviate "her path" to the ball because of the runner....

 

[default]

I believe the offensive player does not have to make contact in order to be called for interference. All the offensive player really has to do is hinder or impede the fielder from being able to make the play for interference to be called.

Len

 

[default]

Thats what I was thinking Len, as it could then become dangerous for the ladies if the rule is they have to run into them fielder/runner or runner/fielder, never a good outcome when collisions occur. I'll await the word from the high court of Bretman

 

[default]

Hilliarddad, I've heard that it is a "judgement" call, I believe Len is right. BTW, in 14U @ Wilmington this weekend there is a Hilliard Cats team there that looked pretty good in the game I saw today. Saw one of the coaches with a Darby shirt on...

 

[default]

Not sure what ones are there, that's where ours originally started and they could be a handful for any team on any given day. Well coached and lot's of softball history in town....

 

[default]

last weekend collision from third to home, catcher in baseline catching throw from 1st base, runner plows over catcher,catcher drops ball.... runner safe....u r allowed to run over player in baseline per ump!!!!!! catcher has bruised jaw and couldnt see for a few minutes...jarred her head....

 

[default]

I think in the play described in the first post, it would be a case-by-case situation. I think you would have to view it to see whether the defender needed to alter her path or was just maybe intimidated or whatever because of the runner.

BNoel has umpired probably thousand of games, but I'm not sure he understood the original post, and I admit I had to read it a few times before it became clear. I believe hilliardad was asking what is to stop the defensive player from just plowing through the baserunner, correct? I once asked an umpire that when the umpire wouldn't call interference without contact and the umpire correctly told me if he judged the defensive player to be purposely running into the baserunner to draw the interference call, he would call obstruction.

But yes, it's frustrating when you have interference and it isn't called because the umpire thinks that there must be contact. If there must be contact, then what is to keep a baserunner from all kinds of antics to shield the defensive player from seeing the ball until the last split second? As lenski said, it's hinder or impede, and then we can aruge over the interpretation of those words.

 

[default]

Contact is not a requirement for a runner interference call. The ASA rule book flat out states that. Interference can be called if the runner's positioning or proximity to a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball hinders her opportunity to make a play. In this case, the fielder 100% has the right of way.

Interference without contact requires a little more judgment from the umpire. Here are two examples of similar plays, one interference and one not.

1) Runner on first base. Ground ball to F4. The fielder is playing back behind the baseline and is stationary, stopped, waiting for the ball to come to her. The runner crosses in front of the fielder while advancing directly to the next base.

This would not be interference. The runners positioning did not impede the fielder's path or opportunity to field the ball.

2) Same situation...except...the fielder is charging in to field the ball. If the fielder has to "check up" or alter her path to the ball due to the runnner's positioning, then that can be interference. Contact is not necessary.

And don't forget that the rules also allow an interference call for verbal interference, which obviously requires no contact. Picture a pop fly where the runner screams, "Look out!", or, "Miss it!", as she passes the fielder. The runner can be called for interference, same as if she plowed into the fielder even though she never touched her.

 

[default]

last weekend collision from third to home, catcher in baseline catching throw from 1st base, runner plows over catcher,catcher drops ball.... runner safe....u r allowed to run over player in baseline per ump!!!!!! catcher has bruised jaw and couldnt see for a few minutes...jarred her head....

Was this in Westerville? Specifically, Hoff Woods Park, field #4, on Saturday?

 

[default]

Thanks Brett as that's what I thought it was. The first time he got it right even though they discussed it being a single out or a double play as she plowed into her. Could have easily been two, but we took the one no problem...

Second time later in game, no contact, but that's when blue stated "rule states Must Have Contact" and I said I believe that not be the correct definition, he said play ball..... Costs us the game in the end

 

[default]

Ouch, Hillarddad3, I hate when that happens.

 

[default]

Contact is not a requirement for a runner interference call. The ASA rule book flat out states that. Interference can be called if the runner's positioning or proximity to a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball hinders her opportunity to make a play. In this case, the fielder 100% has the right of way.

Interference without contact requires a little more judgment from the umpire. Here are two examples of similar plays, one interference and one not.

1) Runner on first base. Ground ball to F4. The fielder is playing back behind the baseline and is stationary, stopped, waiting for the ball to come to her. The runner crosses in front of the fielder while advancing directly to the next base.

This would not be interference. The runners positioning did not impede the fielder's path or opportunity to field the ball.

2) Same situation...except...the fielder is charging in to field the ball. If the fielder has to "check up" or alter her path to the ball due to the runnner's positioning, then that can be interference. Contact is not necessary.

And don't forget that the rules also allow an interference call for verbal interference, which obviously requires no contact. Picture a pop fly where the runner screams, "Look out!", or, "Miss it!", as she passes the fielder. The runner can be called for interference, same as if she plowed into the fielder even though she never touched her.

In scenario 2 even if baserunner is still in base path this could be called interference on the runner? That doesnt sound fair to the runner either.

 

[default]

Yep-even if the runner is in the basepath.

When a fielder is in the act of fielding a batted ball the runner is obligated to give her ample space to complete the play. If she doesn't, and prevents the defense from getting an out, then the penalty is that we kill the play and enforce an out (for interference).

The runner has plenty of options to avoid the fielder. She can stop, slow down, or go around the fielder. It's up to her, but she must give the fielder an unimpeded shot at making the play.

If the fielder is NOT in the act of making a play or DOES NOT have possession of the ball, then the responsibility shifts. Now the runner has the right of way and the fielder is obligated to not hinder her advance on the bases. If she does, then it's obstruction.

I think that the rules provide a balance of responsibilty for both the offense and the defense on these plays. Each is protected in certain situations and each has the obligation to not interfere or obstruct in others.

 

[default]

Yep. I guess that does make sense and seems fair.

 

[default]

Ok today aother ump got it right!! Same exact thing but no contact. Other coach going she has to make contact ARRRRRRHGH!!!!!

Another thing blues... when a foul ball rolls down the batters entire body in the box, "it's a dead ball! If nobody is on first what is the field ump looking at? 100 people saw it how could you not?

 

[default]

I've been wondering about this - - ball hit to short... runner going from second to third behind the SS who is fielding the ball.

SS then fumbles the play, bobbles the ball and steps back into the runner while trying to get control of the bobbled ball.

Still runner interference? SS is still bent over and ball is on the ground if that makes a difference in the call.

 

[default]

That one I'd say no interference as ss made clean initial contact with the ball and the runner attempted to avoid her by going behind her...

 

[default]

Yesterday at Uncle Stan's third baseman trying to get to a foul pop. She runs into the runner at third off the bag. Clearly runner interference. Umps didn't call it stating third baseman didn't have a chance at the ball. Not if she has to go thru a baserunner to get to it.
As far as the catcher collision goes, is it not a rule you either slide or give up. I didn't think you could collide with the catcher under any circumstances. This isn't the majors.