how would you ruled this?
- Thread starter nealwallen
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
It looked to me, like the catcher just plopped her in the back. It wasn't a strong throw and I think it was intentional. The correct play here, is for the catcher to start yelling "Outside!" so that the first baseman knows to position herself in foul territory.
I don't think she turned into the throw. She was running to first. Her back was turned before the catcher released the ball.
As I stated earlier, if I were the PU, 2 outs. That being said, pretty heads up play by the batter. As is evidenced here, there's a fifty-fifty shot of being called interference. If it's not called, she saved an out and the team still has a baserunner.
I've got the batter out on the caught fly ball, then interfering with the throw to first to double up the runner.
First of all, the running lane is not applicable to this play at all. Once the ball is caught, the batter becomes a retired runner and is subject to the rules regarding a retired runner. In order to call interference, the retired runner has to "do something" to interfere. There also has to be a play to be interferred with. What I see is that she starts running to first on contact, then slows because she knows the ball will be caught. The throw had a chance to double the runner at first base. In my judgement, that slowing is enough to warrant an interference call. Had she continued to run at the same pace toward first base, I would not call intererence.
As the UIC stated in his response, these umpires had to make that judgement in real time with only one look at the play. The video ends prior seeing what the actual call on the field was, so I don't know what was called on the field.
First of all, the running lane is not applicable to this play at all. Once the ball is caught, the batter becomes a retired runner and is subject to the rules regarding a retired runner. In order to call interference, the retired runner has to "do something" to interfere. There also has to be a play to be interferred with. What I see is that she starts running to first on contact, then slows because she knows the ball will be caught. The throw had a chance to double the runner at first base. In my judgement, that slowing is enough to warrant an interference call. Had she continued to run at the same pace toward first base, I would not call intererence.
As the UIC stated in his response, these umpires had to make that judgement in real time with only one look at the play. The video ends prior seeing what the actual call on the field was, so I don't know what was called on the field.
I am not an expert, but I would guess the batter is out (on the catch of the pop up) and the base runner at first base is safe. The batter was in the running lane and has the right to be there. Unless the umpire feels the batter intentionally interfered with the catchers ability to make a play.
Similar to a bunt fielded by the catcher. The catcher has to make the adjustment on the throw and the base runner has the right to be in the running lane.
Similar to a bunt fielded by the catcher. The catcher has to make the adjustment on the throw and the base runner has the right to be in the running lane.
- Oct 24, 2010
- 308
- 28
The BU can be heard to say, "That's interference" at about 0:05/0:06 in the video. I don't necessarily agree with the call, but it was decisively made.
- Apr 23, 2012
- 13
- 0
As i said earlier there is no right or wrong answer to this, i am just curious on your guys thought of this play.
This is how the umpires ruled in this case and I noticed someone already posted our UIC Response which is different on how the umpires saw the play. Crabby is right the BU did yell out interference.
The umpire treated the Batted Runner as a retired runner once the catcher caught the bunt attempt. Once the Batter runner is retired it does not matter if she is in fair territory/foul territory the umpires were more concerned with the catchers attempt to double off the runner on first. Once the catcher throw was interferred with on the attempt to first the umpires had interference and the runner closest to home is out, which in this case it was the runner on first.
This is not view of the UIC, but this is what the umpires called at the game. any comments?
This is how the umpires ruled in this case and I noticed someone already posted our UIC Response which is different on how the umpires saw the play. Crabby is right the BU did yell out interference.
The umpire treated the Batted Runner as a retired runner once the catcher caught the bunt attempt. Once the Batter runner is retired it does not matter if she is in fair territory/foul territory the umpires were more concerned with the catchers attempt to double off the runner on first. Once the catcher throw was interferred with on the attempt to first the umpires had interference and the runner closest to home is out, which in this case it was the runner on first.
This is not view of the UIC, but this is what the umpires called at the game. any comments?
Batter out, baserunner safe. There was no intent to cause interference by running into the throwing lane. The batter popped the ball up, looked back and saw the catcher catch it, then turned her head forward and conceded. Nothing more. The catcher made a bad play and the BU made an incorrect call.
Similar threads
