Is this interference?

[djcarter1966]

Hard to tell from this angle what exactly happened at :11 it looks like 1B has ball with foot on corner of bag BR is out....I can only assume since the BU calls her safe her foot was slightly off the bag, then the PU calls the runner out for interference for being waaay inside the baseline and veering into 1B as she receives the throw.

I don't really see anything intentional she can't continue straight since she is so far inside the line so she has to turn towards first she falls over but watching HS games I can't tell how many girls I see over tripping over their own feet I don't think I would have heartburn either way with the call but I don't see an ejection.

 

[djcarter1966]

Actually, neither one of these umpires is where he's supposed to be, not by the umpire manual.

Plate umpire should be trailing the batter-runner up the line, not standing in foul ground behind the plate. When the B/R hits the bag, plate umpire is still in the right-hand batter's box. He should be at least 10-15 feet up the line by that point.

The base umpire signals..."something?"...by raising both hands over his head. Is that a safe signal or is he calling a dead ball? He's about 15 feet farther away from the base than he's supposed to be, too far in toward the baseline, and- my favorite part- while he makes his mystery signal he is jumping in the air while running backwards!

Not exactly textbook mechanics and not exactly a textbook call.

Yeah they might not be the best but I think they are probably better than most PU first check is down the 3B line as the fielder makes the play to ensure it's fair, as soon as she fields it his eyes go down the line, BU strays too far inside but to be fair if your look I think the catcher and second baseman are both right about where the umpires should be

 

[Ajaywill]

The only thing I see here is a play at first base....and, as Bret mentioned, poor umpire mechanics and coverage...

 

[NoVA Softball]

Pretty close either way IMO, but I lean towards interference.

Looks to me that she laid down a bunt and swung WAAAY out of the running lane in a deliberate attempt to make a throw from near the plate harder. I can't imagine any other reason for her to "accidentally" or "coincidentally" be 4' into fair territory 30' up the line. (Had the bunt been fielded closer in by the catcher, she definitely should have been called for interference, but back to the play that actually happened...)

I suppose the PU may have judged that either 1B was screened from a good look at the incoming throw by the runner due to her position or 1B was "forced" to take evasive action (pulling her leg off the bag) with a runner barreling straight at her from fair territory where she's not supposed to be (and may well have deliberately been in an attempt to "pressure" 1B).

I don't know what rule set this was played under, but for USSSA, the relevant rule (17.E) says:
The batter-runner is out: When they run outside the three-foot running lane (last half of the distance from home plate to first base) while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base.
EXCEPTION: This infraction is ignored if it is to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field the batted ball or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw

She's most definitely out of the lane... the only question left is can you say certainly that her positioning "does not interfere" with the throw, catch, or the fielder.

 

[BretMan]

Thanks for posting the rule. But we can't ignore the "EXCEPTION" at the end of the rule. The throw made it to the fielder untouched, and the fielder was able to catch it. So how did the runner interfere with either the throw or the fielder?

 

[NoVA Softball]

USSSA defines interference: "Interference is an act which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."

Like I said, I think it's a close call, but on the balance, I think the call was correct. Look at the B/R position at about 0:10 when 3B comes up to throw. It's hard to have good depth perception with video, but I could understand the PU judging that 3B's throw was impeded (threw wide and maybe took a little off the throw to avoid drilling the runner who at that point appeared to be running straight into the direct flightpath between 3B and 1B). The wide throw is also what pulled 1B off the bag (maybe coupled with a runner barreling in from fair territory instead of passing behind her like she should be).

She undoubtedly meets the first test of the rule (out of the lane). So she's out unless you can apply the exception. To apply the exception, you must definitely determine she "does not interfere" -- I would love to hear from umps, but it seems to my layman's reading put the burden of proof on the offense at that point. Put another way, out for interference is the assumption unless you can definitively find otherwise.

 

[Itsabouttime]

I'm going to find out later what the ump told the coach. Would it be unusual for the PU to overrule the BU on the safe call (no interference) with no prompting from anyone?

 

[BretMan]

I would love to hear from umps...

You are hearing from one, but apparently you don't agree with what I'm telling you.

Aside from being out of the running lane, the other criteria for this being interference are:

- Did the ball actually contact the runner (or the runner contact the ball)? No, not on this play it didn't.

- Did the runner actually prevent the fielder at first base from catching the ball? No, she obviously caught it.

The fact that the fielder making the throw makes a bad throw isn't supposed to be a factor. That would force the umpire to make an impossible judgment. Well, it might be possible if the the umpire is a mind reader! How else would he know for sure if the thrower altered her throw because she was afraid that she might hit the runner? Who knows why the fielder made a weak or off-target throw? Maybe she has a bad arm? Maybe she was off-balance. Maybe the ball is wet. Maybe it slipped.

Even if the runner is out of the lane, we're not supposed to attribute any bad throw, or lack of a throw, to the runner. The fielder is still responsible for making a good throw and if she doesn't, then that's on her. The rule doesn't say teh runner is out if she interferes with the fielder making the throw. The interference has to be with the fielder receiving the throw, or the thrown ball itself.

 

[NoVA Softball]

I appreciate the follow up and discussion. Interference (and her evil twin obstruction) are always the hardest part of the rules for me to apply in practice even when they seem clear on the page. Hopefully I'm not reading as snarky -- I really want to make sure I understand this

You ask and answer two questions that don't seem to me to matter. The rule doesn't require "prevent the fielder from making a catch" it requires "hinder or impede from making a play" -- a very different standard. Of course it's possible to be interfered with and still make a throw and a catch -- just maybe a split second slower or a little off target.

Put another way, the question that matters is: Did the runner's position well outside the running lane in any way "obstruct, impede, hinder or confuse a fielder attempting to make a play"? I think it's a close judgement call, but probably "yes." As I said up front, a reasonable person could see the same play and say "no."

Not to get too far from the OP, but let me ask one follow-up that may help me understand where you're coming from:
Had the bunt dropped right in front of the plate would your answer be different? Does the catcher need to pop-up and drill the B/R in the back of the head to demonstrate that she doesn't have "a bad arm" but is being impeded by the B/R? If not, why is it different for the play in the OP?

 

[NoVA Softball]

The rule doesn't say teh runner is out if she interferes with the fielder making the throw. The interference has to be with the fielder receiving the throw, or the thrown ball itself.

Maybe other rule sets are different, but that's not what the USSSA rules say. It says a runner outside the lane is out, but "This infraction is ignored if... the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw" (that's "a fielder" -- NOT "the fielder receiving the throw"). It then defines "interference" as "interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."