FPMark said:
ASA rules are worded as such that nearly every collision requires some sort of call, whether it be OBS or INT.
NCAA rules allow for a throw by the defense to cause "incidental" contact between the defense and a runner.
Base vs safety bag obstruction
- Thread starter Momo'sDad
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
ASA rules are worded as such that nearly every collision requires some sort of call, whether it be OBS or INT.
NCAA rules allow for a throw by the defense to cause "incidental" contact between the defense and a runner.
We had a call last weekend where a runner lays down a bunt. Ump calls her out on the way to 1st. I looked puzzeld and he informed me she was called out for not moving outside of the line by a certain point. Might of been 1/2 way or something. So maybe they want them over to use the safety bag and not in the throwing lane.
And if that was the call the umpire made, he would have been completely incorrect. The runner is not "required" to use the running lane, however, if they do not and interfere with the throw to 1st base or F3's ability to catch the throw they would be guilty of interference. Merely running outside the lane is not grounds for being called out.
Is the term "interfere" something that umpires interpret in their own way?
I've seen umpires call the runner out where the runner is left of the running lane on a bunt and the position of the ball put the runner right between the fielder and 1B. This is interference, right? The ball doesn't have to hit the runner for an INT call. In these cases if the runner had been in the running lane, interference would very likely not been called.
So while the runner isn't called out for running out of the running lane, in these cases, they would not have been called out if they were running in the running lane.
Am I right here or delusional?
While an act of interference can be a judgment call, the term "interference" is defined in the rule book. To paraphrase, interference is an act by the offensive team that impedes or prevents the defense from making a play, or recording an out.
In the case of the three-foot running lane to first base, the rule specifically says that the batter-runner may not interfere with the fielder receiving the throw. For that to happen, an actual throw must be made. In other words...no throw equals no interference.
In the case of the three-foot running lane to first base, the rule specifically says that the batter-runner may not interfere with the fielder receiving the throw. For that to happen, an actual throw must be made. In other words...no throw equals no interference.
- Feb 3, 2011
- 1,880
- 48
Ok, it seems there was some post-game discussion of the situation (not just here) and it was the umpire's judgment that the runner did not cause F3 to drop the ball and that, after the collision, F3 - who was on her back at the time - prevented runner from having a clear path to 2B once the ball was on the ground. So, the obstruction call was made and runner was awarded 2B.
Per our local league regulations, the runner is responsible for avoiding collisions. Sliding on plays at home is addressed, but use of the orange bag at 1B is not, which I just found out. I think this should be added.
Per our local league regulations, the runner is responsible for avoiding collisions. Sliding on plays at home is addressed, but use of the orange bag at 1B is not, which I just found out. I think this should be added.
Please don't tell us that your league has a special rule that says a runner MUST slide at home (and why just at home, when a close play of the same nature could happen at any other base). Do they not realize that more players are injured while sliding that all of the injuries from batter's being hit by pitched, thrown or batted balls, plus collisions between players combined. Add in the fact that players in rec leagues are seldom trained or experienced in the technique of safely executing a slide and this "safety rule" is just asking for a more serious injury than it is intended to prevent.
You say this is an ASA league. Why don't they just follow the ASA rules as written, which do already cover player collisions, when runners must avoid contact, use of the double first base, obstruction and interference. The rules are written to provide a fair balance of responsibility between the offense and defense to avoid dangerous play. Your league would really be better off to use the rules as they are already written and to provide some training to your coaches and umpires on how these rules can be taught and enforced.
But, no, many leagues in the name of "safety" come up with a list of their own rules, many of which conflict with the existing rules, cause more confusion among the participants or actually create conditions that are actually unsafe.
You say this is an ASA league. Why don't they just follow the ASA rules as written, which do already cover player collisions, when runners must avoid contact, use of the double first base, obstruction and interference. The rules are written to provide a fair balance of responsibility between the offense and defense to avoid dangerous play. Your league would really be better off to use the rules as they are already written and to provide some training to your coaches and umpires on how these rules can be taught and enforced.
But, no, many leagues in the name of "safety" come up with a list of their own rules, many of which conflict with the existing rules, cause more confusion among the participants or actually create conditions that are actually unsafe.
Check out the wording in the ASA Points of Emphasis 14 D,E, and F. If the ball carries the fielder into the path of the runner it is considered "incidental" contact. It also spells out other "no calls" for contact between runners and defensive players.
I think that you're misunderstanding the Point of Emphasis.
(I also think that you're looking at an old rule book, since they are now called "Rules Supplements" and haven't been called "Points of Emphasis" for a few years. Plus, the supplemental rule you're refering to is now #13, not #14).
That POE is about crash interference, a violation committed by the runner. When the fielder is pulled into the runner's path by an errant throw, it is not a crash- that is, it's not a rule violation by the runner.
In other words, it's not interference, but it could still be obstruction. It's not saying it should be a "no call".
(I also think that you're looking at an old rule book, since they are now called "Rules Supplements" and haven't been called "Points of Emphasis" for a few years. Plus, the supplemental rule you're refering to is now #13, not #14).
That POE is about crash interference, a violation committed by the runner. When the fielder is pulled into the runner's path by an errant throw, it is not a crash- that is, it's not a rule violation by the runner.
In other words, it's not interference, but it could still be obstruction. It's not saying it should be a "no call".
- May 30, 2011
- 143
- 0
Well, it is in so far as if the batter-runner is running in fair territory she is NOT running in the running lane. If she runs outside the lane and interferes with the fielder taking the throw at 1B then she is guilty of INT. Dead ball, batter-runner out, all other runners return to the base occupied at time of INT.
