View Message Board Guidelines
 |
Author |
TOPIC: Interference |
|
| Jon (Mount Olivet)
August 14, 2009
12:19:19 PM
Entry #: 3246121
| Dennis, in a previous post you mentioned that the base is not a safehaven for baserunners, so what would happen in the following scenarios:
Case #1 Runner on 1st, one out, batter pops the ball up to first base, baserunner stands on 1st base because if the ball is caught and he is NOT on the base, the fielder can simply touch the base to make the double play. But since he is standing on the base and the ball is coming right down on him, the fielder misses the ball and it hits the BR, thus signalling a 'dead ball'.
Is this interference on the BR because he impeded the fielder from making the catch? Or does the runner have every right to stand his ground? So long as the BR does whatever he can to give the fielder a chance to catch it (ducking, leaning away from the ball, but able to keep his foot on the base), I would argue he was not interfering with the fielder, although it may have unintentionally distracted the fielder from making the catch. BR should be awarded 2nd base, and the batter 1st base.
Is this the correct ruling? Or would it in fact be interference? Or would it be fully up to the umpire to determine whether the BR intentionally impeded the fielder from making the play, or if he did whatever he could to give the fielder a chance to make the catch, yet still managing to stay on his base?
Scenario # 2 - Runner on 1st, batted ball is popped up to 1st base, BR mistakingly takes a few steps towards 2nd base, giving the fielder a chance to stand right on 1st base to make the catch, and when the BR tries to get to the base BEFORE the ball is caught (when he realized his mistake), the fielder is in the way & he can't touch the base. Would this be interference on the fielder for not allowing the BR to get back to his/her base? Or is it just a bad baserunning mistake and the fielder has the right to stand his ground, even if he is in the baserunners way?
I can't see these coming up very often in a season, but they are possible and it would be good to have a ruling on them.
|
|
| Dennis (Hosanna)
August 14, 2009
4:26:26 PM
Entry #: 3246299
| Jon, I wondered who would catch that after I posted it!
Re: Case #1, you're correct, and my post was misleading. In this case, it is only interference if it is deemed intentional, and the rule actually does use the word "intentionally".
The runner is expected to give the fielder some room, but s/he is also not expected to put him/herself in jeopardy. But if the runner doesn't actually try to interfere and doesn't particularly try to get out of the way, I would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the runner.
So my wording wasn't very good on this one. Thanks for bringing it up!
Re: Case #2, first interference by a fielder is called 'obstruction'.
Most of the time, the fielder must give the runner the right of way and allow the runner to choose his/her path around the bases. The notable exceptions are (a) when the fielder has the ball and (b) when the fielder is attempting to play the batted ball.
In your example, the fielder is trying to play the batted ball, and therefore cannot cause obstruction (unless s/he does something really out of the ordinary). Because the runner is off the base, s/he must allow the fielder the opportunity to play the batted ball without hindrance.
So yes, this is a baesrunning mistake, and depending on what the runner does, there may or may not be interference.
One thing to note, though, is that at any given time, only one fielder has the 'right' to play the batted ball, and that is the fielder who has the best chance to make the play. It is this fielder that is 'protected' from obstruction. Only one fielder at a time can have this protection, but it can transfer from one fielder to another as the situation changes.
|
|
| ryan
June 11, 2011
11:28:14 PM
Entry #: 3744235
| there is no interfernce. If there is only one out and it is infeild pop up, the batter is called out automatically. In feild fly rule
|
|
| ryan
June 11, 2011
11:33:14 PM
Entry #: 3744237
| when in feild fly rule is called , the play is dead
|
|
| ryan
June 11, 2011
11:42:04 PM
Entry #: 3744238
|
oh ya, first base at least has to be occupied for the in feild fly rule to take affect. consequently the same rule will be effect if first, second, or first, second or third is occupied
this rule is NOT in affect when there are 2 outs
so you coudl change your question to 2 outs and ask about interference , but i do not think that situation will come up very often. in fact, i have never saw it.
|
|
| Rudy
June 12, 2011
12:05:50 AM
Entry #: 3744240
| Ryan, infield fly rule only applies when there is a force play at 3rd base (and less than two outs). Neither of Jon's situations mentioned a runner at 2nd base.
|
|
| ryan
June 13, 2011
1:42:44 AM
Entry #: 3744720
| ooooooopps you are right
|
|
| Dennis (Hosanna)
June 13, 2011
8:53:55 AM
Entry #: 3744885
| Not to mention that an Infield Fly is a LIVE ball!!!! Assuming it is a dead ball is a common mistake. The ONLY difference between an infield fly and any other fly ball is that the batter-runner is out (thus removing the forces). In all other ways, they are the same (ball is live, runners may advance at their peril, if the fly is caught, runners must tag up before advancing).
|
|
| Dennis
June 20, 2011
5:48:11 PM
Entry #: 3749544
| I should also mention that Jon's original post of this thread was prompted by a comment that I made in the "Batted ball hits home plate" thread regarding a runner being hit by a catchable fly ball while on base. Re-reading some of that, my comment there wasn't just misleading, but I think I was mixing rule sets and bringing in some baseball rules where they shouldn't be.
So just to clarify, under Softball Canada, a runner is allowed to remain on base, and if s/he is hit by any batted ball, s/he is NOT out.
|
|
| Dennis
August 10, 2011
11:55:07 AM
Entry #: 3778881
| As a further follow up to this thread, note that the rulebook explicitly states that a runner in contact with their base is not out when struck by a batted ball. In effect, the runner is granted a sort of immunity from this type of interference. But the rulebook makes no mention of immunity for such a runner interfering with a fielder trying to field a batted ball.
A situation happened last year (2010) in the Alberta fast-pitch provincial championships that prompted Softball Canada to issue an interpretation on their website. You can find it here: http://www.softball.ca/page.asp?id=287
The rest of this post is a direct copy of that situation and interpretation:
Play: The following play created some issues last year in Alberta. R2. B1 pops the ball up toward second base. R2 leaves the base but then returns to the base while the fielder F4 is getting near the ball. The fielder converges on the ball and R2 while on the base hits F4’s with her helmet causing her to miss the ball. The rules committee ruled incidental contact saying that R2 did not intentionally collide with F4.
Rule: The question from Alberta asked if this was interference or not? The question becomes can a player already on a base cause interference? The answer is yes but the interference must be intentional. In this play the protest committee and the umpires stated the player did not intentionally collide with the fielder so the Protest was upheld.
The coach of the team wanted to know where is it in the Rule Book that it must be intentional to have interference with a player already on the base. He raises a good point because it does not say it in the Rule Book. A base runner is not forced to vacate a base when a fielder is fielding a ball. The runner is entitled to hold the base unless forced to vacate because the batter becomes a runner. This includes the runner returning to hold the base. Rule 8-4b and effect.
ASA softball in their rule supplement best explains the situation:
A runner could be standing on a base and a defensive player bumps the runner while watching the flight of the ball. If the defensive player fails to make a catch on the ball that could have been caught, it is the umpire’s judgement weather of or not interference could be called. The rule provides that a runner must vacate any space needed by a fielder to make a play on a batted ball, unless the runner has contact with the base when the hindrance occurs. In this case, the runner should not be called out unless the hindrance is intentional.
The ASA explanation has always been the Softball Canada Interpretation. Further to the coach’s concerns. I do agree with the coach that if a runner has vacated the base and then returns to the base even if she has reached the base it does not give the runner the right to collide with a fielder making a play on the ball. If the contact is initiated by the runner you could have interference. At this point you would rule it intentional because a runner must be in control and if their head is down not looking where they are running that is not in control. If both fielder and runner collide which is what this rules committee decided it would be incidental and no call.
|
|
