obstruction on third strike in the dirt?
- Thread starter smashdad
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Please cite your rule supplement reference....
I'm going to have to agree with Sparky Guy:
ASA 8-2-F-6: BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT when the batter-runner interferes with a dropped third strike.
"Interferes with a dropped third strike" is a bit vague, so I'm going to rely on how "interference" is defined in the rule book.
ASA Definition of Interference: the act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.
I don't see anything else.
I scoured the Rules Supplement and didn't find anything that overruled 8-2-F-6 and the definition of interference. I have heard/read the "scramble/unscramble" application to scenarios that can only be described as "unavoidable train wrecks" but haven't been able to find that in the rule book either. Guidance would be appreciated.
You must be a joy on the diamond.
Care to link the specific rule you say applies?
I've only heard of the "scramble/unscramble" play (or, as I've heard it called, the "tangle/untangle play") used to describe a batted ball, like when a bunt is straight out in front of the plate. There you have the catcher moving straight out and (if it's a RH batter) a batter moving straight up the foul line toward first base. This puts both on a criss-crossing collision course.
I've also heard that this doesn't apply once the batter and fielder have vacated that single congested area. Once the batter is out of the batter's box and up the line- as described in the first post- now we are applying the usual interference/obstruction rules.
Here's the first time I was exposed to the concept, way back in 1975:
[video]http://m.mlb.com/video/v31116737/[/video]
I've also heard that this doesn't apply once the batter and fielder have vacated that single congested area. Once the batter is out of the batter's box and up the line- as described in the first post- now we are applying the usual interference/obstruction rules.
Here's the first time I was exposed to the concept, way back in 1975:
[video]http://m.mlb.com/video/v31116737/[/video]
Last edited:
- May 30, 2011
- 143
- 0
A U3K is not a batted ball, so F2 chasing it out into fair ground after it ricochets off her leg guard is not fielding a batted ball. She is a fielder without possession of the ball so she may not impede the BR as she goes after the ball. If she does it's OBS. The BR may not "interfere with a dropped third strike" that is to say the ball itself. So if batter runner runs into F2 without the ball: OBS. Batter runner runs into path of ball and inadvertently kicks it away from F2: INT.
A bunt in front of home plate is a different animal. This IS a batted ball and if F2 is the fielder judged to have the best opportunity to play the batted ball then she does have right of way and BR must avoid her.
A bunt in front of home plate is a different animal. This IS a batted ball and if F2 is the fielder judged to have the best opportunity to play the batted ball then she does have right of way and BR must avoid her.
Scramble/unscramble and tangle/untangle are the terms used to describe the situation in the rules book. The terms themselves are not there. This play is covered in the R/S.
It applies to more than batted balls. I would agree that the further up the line the ball is, the more onus on the runner to avoid the ball and the defender. I pictured the ball just in front of the left-handed batter's box in this play. Perhaps it was further up. That's just how I interpreted the play.
You are correct in that she is not fielding a batted ball in this scenario. But in the definition of "interference," it talks about a defender attempting to execute a play. "Play" is defined in the rule book as an attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player. In this scenario, F2 is attempting to retire the BR when the BR collides with F2.
Alternatively, "obstruction" is defined as the act of a defensive team member who impedes the progress of the runner while not in possession of the ball nor in the act of fielding a batted ball. In this scenario, the BR collides with F2 who is neither in possession of the ball nor in the act of fielding a batted ball.
Is this one of those gray areas of the rule book created when certain terms were changed in one place without regard for how it would affect other parts? Or was this left like this intentionally?
If there is one thing I've learned from here and the rules clinics I've attended, it's to never provide my own interpretation of what was "meant" when it is covered in the definitions. I would hope the rulemakers wouldn't leave it this vague and more specifically state "interfere with the ball on a dropped third strike" if that is what they meant. By writing just "interfere with a dropped third strike" forces me to rely on the definition of interference.
I ask again...please cite the specific number of the rules supplement you are referencing....
