interpretation: play on 2B steal attempt

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

May 30, 2013
1,442
83
Binghamton, NY
scenario: Runner on 1B. On the Pitch, Runner attempts to steal 2B. Catcher throw low and to 1B side of 2B bag. Runner, Ball, and SS arrive at 2B simultaneously. There is "contact" because ball, SS , and Runner are converging to the same spot, at the same time.

Regardless of whether: a) SS is blocking Runner from reaching base on slide, b) Runner, by sliding into base, prevents SS from fielding throw from C

Is this a non-call situation? If everything happens at once?

or is there Obstruction or Interference?

My inclination is " no- call", but I want to hear other opinions.

Thanks!
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
If all 3 arrive at same point at same time and runner was not judged to have been obstructed prior to the contact, it is nothing. As for your situation b, a fielder is not protected when receiving a throw. As long as the actions by the runner were not intentional to interfere and just part of normal playing action, this would not be interference.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
scenario: Runner on 1B. On the Pitch, Runner attempts to steal 2B. Catcher throw low and to 1B side of 2B bag. Runner, Ball, and SS arrive at 2B simultaneously. There is "contact" because ball, SS , and Runner are converging to the same spot, at the same time.

Regardless of whether: a) SS is blocking Runner from reaching base on slide, b) Runner, by sliding into base, prevents SS from fielding throw from C

Is this a non-call situation? If everything happens at once?

or is there Obstruction or Interference?

My inclination is " no- call", but I want to hear other opinions.

Thanks!

I believe it is clearer if just one question is asked. Did the defender have possession of the ball at the time of the impediment? If no, by rule, it is OBS. The defender has no right of way to any location or path on a thrown ball..
 
Sep 29, 2014
2,421
113
IF the runner was in fact impeded by the defender without the ball then yes that would be OBS.

whether or not their was an impediment is a judgement call by the ump, without an impediment you can't have OBS.

On the flip side if the runner does something to intentionally cause the fielder to not be able to make a play that would be interference...again a judgement call by the ump.

but that seems like a different question than the original one, if as describe by the OP this all happens at the same time I would think "no call" would be the right call.
 
Last edited:
May 30, 2013
1,442
83
Binghamton, NY
so. just so I understand:

1) if the runner, sliding into the base, makes contact with the SS fielding the throw-down from the C, BEFORE the ball arrives - then it is Obstruction? Is it only Obstruction IF the SS blocked the Runner's path, and she DID NOT reach the base?

2) if it all happens together: Runner, SS, Ball all arriving at same time, no call? No matter if: a) the Runner sliding contact prevents SS from fielding the throw successfully OR b) SS position playing ball prevents Runner from reaching the base
 
Sep 14, 2011
768
18
Glendale, AZ
so. just so I understand:

1) if the runner, sliding into the base, makes contact with the SS fielding the throw-down from the C, BEFORE the ball arrives - then it is Obstruction? Is it only Obstruction IF the SS blocked the Runner's path, and she DID NOT reach the base?

2) if it all happens together: Runner, SS, Ball all arriving at same time, no call? No matter if: a) the Runner sliding contact prevents SS from fielding the throw successfully OR b) SS position playing ball prevents Runner from reaching the base

For the most part, you have the general principles.

Remember, however, that contact is not necessary for Obstruction. If the position of the fielder that does not have the ball in any way hinders the runner, then obstruction has occurred. Examples would be the runner sliding too early, the runner changing her path to bag to try to slide around the fielder (hook slide or slide by).
 
May 30, 2013
1,442
83
Binghamton, NY
Thanks for helping to clarify this folks.

I had thought that if a Fielder is making a play on the ball, then they CANNOT obstruct the Runner,
and if the Runner impedes the Fielder's ability to make a play on the ball, then it is Interference.

Sounds like, on a "bang-bang" play, the Runner is NOT in jeopardy of Interference, but the Fielder IS in jeopardy of Obstruction?
 
Mar 13, 2010
960
0
Columbus, Ohio
Thanks for helping to clarify this folks.

I had thought that if a Fielder is making a play on the ball, then they CANNOT obstruct the Runner,
and if the Runner impedes the Fielder's ability to make a play on the ball, then it is Interference.

Sounds like, on a "bang-bang" play, the Runner is NOT in jeopardy of Interference, but the Fielder IS in jeopardy of Obstruction?

There's a different standard for BATTED balls versus THROWN balls. It sounds like you're applying the standard for batted balls to all situations.

To put it as basically as possible, on batted balls the fielder/defense has the right of way. The runner must yield to the fielder any space needed to field a batted ball. If the runner impedes the fielder it's interference.

On thrown balls the runner/offense has the right of way. Unless already in possession of the ball, the fielder may not impede the runner. If she does, then it's obstruction.
 

Strike2

Allergic to BS
Nov 14, 2014
2,044
113
If the runner executes a normal slide into a base, interference is a very unlikely call.

However, if the runner ran into the fielder to dislodge the ball or prevent a catch, or slid feet up with apparent intent to injure, then interference would be appropriate, and possibly ejection.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,481
Members
21,445
Latest member
Bmac81802
Top