SS Gave Up Interference Rule?

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

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

LetsPlayTwo

LetsPlayTwo
Jul 4, 2014
24
0
Ohio
Runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs. Looping line drive to F6 - one of those that at first look like a hard hit line drive, but really just have a lot of spin holding it up. F6 takes what amounts to a small drop-step (doesn't take multiple steps or really cover any ground other that the small step back with one foot) and then immediately judges the ball is not hit hard and that she should move back to play the arcing ball. R2 runs on contact and passes just in front of F6 causing an obvious hesitation/adjustment as ball hits glove but is dropped. Bases now loaded 0 outs. Umpire said that with the slight step backwards F6 gave up the right to "protection" by the interference rule. We argued the step backwards was just her way of judging/fielding that particular ball and that the affect of R2 was obvious. I did some quick research but couldn't find anything like "It is not interference when..." but I could have missed something. Comments? The frustrating part is that the play had double play and maybe triple play written all over it as R1 ran on contact too and both R2 and R1 would have been sitting ducks as far off the bases they would have been with a clean catch.
 
Apr 17, 2012
806
18
Wi
Copied from another post. ASA 8-8-A, The runner is not out when a runner runs behind or in front of the fielder and outside the base path in order to avoid interfering with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

Simply running in front of the fielder is not in itself interference. There must be some other act associated with it in order to rule it interference.

What did the runner do to interfere?
 
Jun 11, 2013
2,619
113
inside, I'm 99 percent sure that's to protect the runner from getting called for running out of the baseline. If the Ump in this case determines that the
runner impeded the players attempt to catch the ball he can call interference. Even though the runner didn't do it on purpose it is still interference.
However in practice they don't call it much if you don't make contact.
 
Oct 11, 2010
8,337
113
Chicago, IL
The only time I have seen this called is if the runner hesitates to time her getting to the fielder the same time as the ball.

Not sure what the ump is taking about in regards to drop step, fielder can do cartwheels if she wants, she still has the right to field the ball without interference from runners. From the way you described it it doesn't sound like runner interfered, she was just running to 3rd.
 
Mar 1, 2013
396
43
I didn't see it so I don't know what I would call on that play. It sounds like it could have been called interference. The umpire judged it was not. When asked about it, the umpire should have said that he didn't judge it to be interference and that should have been the end of it. There is nothing about "giving up their protection" or anything like that. That's one of the problems when umpires make up rules or justifications for their call with no support in the rules.
 
Apr 17, 2012
806
18
Wi
Copied from comp a resident rules guru from anther post regarding interference.

The rules specifically state the runner may run in front of a fielder fielding a batted ball. As long as the runner did not purposely time the crossing with the ball, hold up in front of the fielder or pass so closely it didnt give the fielder room to field the ball it is nothing.

ASA 8-8-A, The runner is not out when a runner runs behind or in front of the fielder and outside the base path in order to avoid interfering with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

Simply running in front of the fielder is not in itself interference. There must be some other act associated with it in order to rule it interference. Just had this argument on an umpire board a few weeks ago where several tried to invoke umpire judgement. Yes, interference is umpire judgement, but when the rules specifically state the runner can pass in front of the fielder you cannot cite the passing in front as the reason for the interference call. There must be some other action by the runner.
 

LetsPlayTwo

LetsPlayTwo
Jul 4, 2014
24
0
Ohio
To clarify...there was no contact, but the act of F6 coming back to the ball took her into the baseline and had she not hesitated and/or changed her approach to fielding the ball, there would have been contact. R2 did indeed pass in front of F6 while running to 3rd and stayed in the baseline (from our visual angle on the bench). She didn't intentionally do anything to R6, but as I understand it, she doesn't have to for interference to be called. The results/action of F6 seems to speak for itself. R2 could have slowed or gone behind F6. The main issue is the umpire basing the call on an initial backward movement by F6 -however slight - essentially taking interference off the table. In fact the ump said F6 should have just collided with R2, then interference would be an easy call...Just when I was running out of ideas for practice drills: OK girls, were going to practice tactical collisions!
 
Dec 23, 2009
791
0
San Diego
In fact the ump said F6 should have just collided with R2, then interference would be an easy call...Just when I was running out of ideas for practice drills: OK girls, were going to practice tactical collisions!

Another sad but true fact of dealing with (probably) a baseball umpire doing softball...to some umpires contact is the only reason to call interference (or obstruction)...

DD has played on teams where it has been stressed that players cannot be afraid of initiating contact...

I'm still surprised every year when I watch the WCWS at the number of times contact initiated by the D1 infielder would have resulted in a call but the D1 infielder backed off...

And just to be absolutely clear...I am NOT saying any infielder should blast a runner to get an interference call...but I can tell here in SoCal it is definitely taught by some TB organizations...
 
Sep 29, 2014
2,421
113
Does not sound like interference. Runner ran in front of SS to 3B. SS froze momentarily judging the ball not because of anything the runner did. She got her glove on the ball but dropped it; no call My only question might be how looping was it? and might it have been an infield fly?
 

obbay

Banned
Aug 21, 2008
2,199
0
Boston, MA
1) I have seen a middle Infielder have to adjust her approach to field a ball due to the runner running front of her and there is no call. Apparently the correct play is to assume the runner will avoid YOU and field the ball as you would if there were no baserunner.
2) I have also seen a SS who was playing in, turn and run into a BR and received an interference call when there was no way she could have caught the ball that was past her at the time of the collision. The umpire said she was trying to play the ball and the collision happened before she might have gotten to it. His job was not to determine if she would make the out but rather to call the interference that happened en route to the ball.
3) Another one- BR on 2b, hit is deflected by pitcher and fielded/played by F4. BR collided with F6 (who wasn't involved in the play) and is called out for interference.
Whether I agree or not doesn't matter, just sharing a few examples of calls I've seen where an understanding of the rules by fielder, baserunner and coach could've changed the outcome.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,475
Members
21,445
Latest member
Bmac81802
Top