interference between home and 1st

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

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

May 13, 2012
599
18
Had this last two tourneys. Low pop up few feet foul first base side. Both times first base coming hard, batter running down line. Both times saw my player alter their path, once slightly pulls up, the other slight veer to right. First one I don't think Ď would have made play. Second one was close enough of play it could have so I questioned it. I got the "no contact" answer and I said there doesn't have to be, and gave the altered path explanation. That got me the drop it or else look. Now I know their path was altered as i was watching. I will admit neither was huge altered paths. My question is do umps give Lee way based on how close the play would be to an actual catch. In both case ball is fairly low and both would have been diving catches if caught.
 
Oct 11, 2010
8,337
113
Chicago, IL
1 and only 1 fielder has right of way to ball.

I do think it is a hard call for umpire, steam comes out of my ears when I hear but there was no contact.

I do not want my players running over the other Team, I also do not want them running over us.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
Had this last two tourneys. Low pop up few feet foul first base side. Both times first base coming hard, batter running down line. Both times saw my player alter their path, once slightly pulls up, the other slight veer to right. First one I don't think Ď would have made play. Second one was close enough of play it could have so I questioned it. I got the "no contact" answer and I said there doesn't have to be, and gave the altered path explanation. That got me the drop it or else look. Now I know their path was altered as i was watching. I will admit neither was huge altered paths. My question is do umps give Lee way based on how close the play would be to an actual catch. In both case ball is fairly low and both would have been diving catches if caught.

Assuming "your player" is the BR. The fielder has the right of way to field the batted ball, no exceptions. If there was contact, then it would be INT and the BR would be ruled out. If the BR's presence hinders the fielder from making a play on the ball, it would be INT and, again, the BR would be ruled out.

And no, it is not that hard a call for a decent umpire to make.
 
May 13, 2012
599
18
MTR
we were on D. The path altered was slight but I did see it. In no way can I say without the altered path caused us to not get an out. Both would have to be diving catches if made at all.
 
Dec 19, 2012
1,428
0
Change their mindset!

Had this last two tourneys. Low pop up few feet foul first base side. Both times first base coming hard, batter running down line. Both times saw my player alter their path, once slightly pulls up, the other slight veer to right. First one I don't think Ď would have made play. Second one was close enough of play it could have so I questioned it. I got the "no contact" answer and I said there doesn't have to be, and gave the altered path explanation. That got me the drop it or else look. Now I know their path was altered as i was watching. I will admit neither was huge altered paths. My question is do umps give Lee way based on how close the play would be to an actual catch. In both case ball is fairly low and both would have been diving catches if caught.

Phathead, I agree no contact is needed in order for INT to be called. However, your fielders need to focus on the ball and not the runner/BR. It is the runners/BR's job to make sure they do not interfere with a fielder making a play. It is the fielders job to make sure they do not obstruct the runner/BR if said fielder is not making a play. Your fielders cannot continue to play timid and expect INT's to get called. I am not saying to plow a kid over. I am just simply stating that your fielders need to focus on making a play on the ball rather than focusing on the runner/BR and pulling up or changing direction.
 
May 13, 2012
599
18
Phathead, I agree no contact is needed in order for INT to be called. However, your fielders need to focus on the ball and not the runner/BR. It is the runners/BR's job to make sure they do not interfere with a fielder making a play. It is the fielders job to make sure they do not obstruct the runner/BR if said fielder is not making a play. Your fielders cannot continue to play timid and expect INT's to get called. I am not saying to plow a kid over. I am just simply stating that your fielders need to focus on making a play on the ball rather than focusing on the runner/BR and pulling up or changing direction.

In both cases I did just that. "Do not run around the batter". I think it was just instinct when they caught a glimpse of the runner out of the corner of their eye and in both cases a very slight change In speed or path was more than enough to avoid the contact. I was just wondering what the threshold was to call it. Neither was a game changer nor massive but was there non the less. I guess it just point of emphasis for me from tourny I posted about earlier when SS broke and runner from second broke on batted ball up the middle smack into each other. Ump said incendental and I said batted ball has to be interference or obstruction and I got the your crazy look. Like I said no biggy on affecting the outcome just wanted to get some of the umpires on here opinion on how and what they look for.
 
Oct 11, 2010
8,337
113
Chicago, IL
I think normal effort is required probably wrong. I do think it should lean towards defense.

I also refuse the notion contact must be made, quick trip to bench if someone intentionally make contact. There is enough unintentional contact, do not need players doing it on purpose. Plus DD is small, she always loses. :)
 

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,473
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top