Softball tackle? and the recovery.

[nikkilugi]

I hope your kid is ok but to the point of her doing it on purpose (which it seems like you are implying), I don't think that is what happened. Most every RH batter runs inside the runner's lane or the first 20 ft or so and it looked like she was running with her head down until the last second when it was too late and she put her hands up as a reaction. Just an unfortunate accident

I was responding the The Man in Blue on whether it was an interference call and "how to interpret it" - it was 100% interference whether it was malicious or not and I've heard opinions both ways. I tend to think the best of people but my kid is not small - and she does not go down easily. I won't say it was intentional BUT I will say this - my kid would have apologized at some point. THIS kid did not - at all. No acknowledgment of that "unfortunate accident" at all and actually a little disgust she was called for interference. That's all.

 

[_MIA_]

I was responding the The Man in Blue on whether it was an interference call and "how to interpret it" - it was 100% interference whether it was malicious or not and I've heard opinions both ways. I tend to think the best of people but my kid is not small - and she does not go down easily. I won't say it was intentional BUT I will say this - my kid would have apologized at some point. THIS kid did not - at all. No acknowledgment of that "unfortunate accident" at all and actually a little disgust she was called for interference. That's all.

Sounds like you think it was malicious...that's fine. I disagree. That's all.

 

[CoachJD]

Runner is well inside the line in fair territory and it looks malicious to me. I am tossing her. One word from coach and he is gone too. Might even ask TD if she should be suspended for her next game too. Who teaches this crap?

She's running with the head down until the very last instant. Her arms go up to protect herself. She doesn't brace herself or lower her shoulder as if she's planning to do it. Since 1B is looking up, of course she got the worst of it.

This is obstruction on the 1B because C is the protected infielder here (after all, she's the one camped under the ball/the one who caught the ball).

I'm pulling my team off the field and out of the tournament if my player is ejected for this. I'm also going to consider legal action against the organization if my team isn't refunded in full. There's absolutely no justification for an ejection here when the 1B was the one at fault and the runner very clearly didn't do anything on purpose.

 

[CoachJD]

I was responding the The Man in Blue on whether it was an interference call and "how to interpret it" - it was 100% interference whether it was malicious or not and I've heard opinions both ways. I tend to think the best of people but my kid is not small - and she does not go down easily. I won't say it was intentional BUT I will say this - my kid would have apologized at some point. THIS kid did not - at all. No acknowledgment of that "unfortunate accident" at all and actually a little disgust she was called for interference. That's all.

It's not interference. It's obstruction on the 1B. She's not a protected fielder in this case because the catcher is the one camped under the ball.

Malicious contact can be argued, though it seems clear from the video that the batter-runner also wasn't expecting the contact until the very last moment.

 

[Rolling Hard]

I watched on my phone. Hard to see. I will review later on pc.

 

[nikkilugi]

It's not interference. It's obstruction on the 1B. She's not a protected fielder in this case because the catcher is the one camped under the ball.

Malicious contact can be argued, though it seems clear from the video that the batter-runner also wasn't expecting the contact until the very last moment.

I'm sorry but no way. 1B had a play on that ball and every coach instructs the higher number fielder to make the play. P is instructed to never make catches if another player can make that catch and on our team C is also instructed to not make that play because she doesn't pull off her helmet. In the field of play on the right side 1B has priority over the other fielders. I don't care who is "camped" under it. If 1B gets there she calls off C and C backs off. If the fielder is going to make a play on the ball AND has a play which she absolutely did then it is 100% interference. The ball was in front of her and she was making a play on that ball. That is the definition of the rule. Also you noticed C didn't make the catch? That's why 1B makes that play.

 

[Westwind]

Who teaches this crap?

She must have read this book…. P.M. is an answer we would accept….

 

[The Man In Blue]

I think they botched the reversal in that video. IMO, that runner certainly hindered the 3rd baseman from fielding that ball.

To the OP. You need to fix the YT video. No one can see anything since it is Private.

Technically, they got it (it being the MLB play, in case there is confusion) right. The ball was past the fielder and there was no chance of a play being made at that point.

Where I disagree is two-points:

I feel the impedance occurred before that point, but even if you don’t agree …

Interference protects a player in the act of making a play. As we know with catches, the act does not immediately end at first touch (or, I argue in this case, immediately when the ball passes). The fielder cannot magically stop because he missed the ball, so his “making a play” continues past the instant the ball passes. (He didn’t deflect it, or we could argue for “step and a reach” protection.) The runner had the choice of which path to take, the fielder did not.

 

[The Man In Blue]

The crew has to determine who is the protected fielder (pitcher, catcher or 1b). If it’s catcher, then we have likely obstruction. If it’s 1b, then interference.

Nailed it.

I think they had a lot to talk about when they got together. I would place money on the PU having the catcher protected and U1 having your daughter protected. They then need to talk it out because you can ONLY protect ONE fielder.

Here is the sticky wicket:

My initial instinct was that the catcher was making the play, so the catcher should be protected. HOWEVER, the runner is well past the catcher so there is no protection to give to the catcher. That would allow us to extend the protection to F3 who potentially had a play. It sounds as if the conversation didn’t make it quite far enough.

Malicious? I wouldn’t touch that one. Just a crash, IMO.

Initially I was going to disagree with @nikkilugi … but I think she is right. Not in every detail (yes, a fielder camped out would get the protection and the other would not IF both fielders were in the path), but in the end resolution.

Can I bank this one to use for training material @nikkilugi ?

 

[marriard]

OK...
Few things here and lots going on.

First get a better phone or video recorder or fix your focus. It is 2023 - your video shouldn't look like it is from 1984. Details when available are important.

• The rule says (this is USSSA wording but it is much the same for all codes) "NOTE 4: If two fielders try to field a batted ball and the runner contacts one or both, the Umpire shall decide which one is entitled to field the ball and that fielder only is entitled to protection."
  • The whole 'higher number position'calls/has the play is something a coach might say to make it simple for the team to understand priority, but it has nothing to do with the rule themselves so is irrelevant. Same with 'my team wants 1B to catch that' ( I don't know your team) or 'the catcher left her helmet on' (which is how most people teach it now). Not in the rule book.
• So the umpire can protect 1 fielder making a play - and it hard from the video to decide who that is. If it is an easy & obvious catch for 1B, then maybe. But the C is clearly moving to the ball and much closer, you 100% know she already has a play and she never stops trying to make the play, so I have been leaning in that direction even after several watches. 'Protection' doesn't care if there is nothing to protect - just got to decide who is 'entitled to the ball'

So, umpires judgement - if they decide C was entitled to field the ball and is protected, then OBS. If they decide 1B was the entitled fielder, then INT and an out. With just the video, I would be good with either decision being made on the field to be honest if this is how they explained it.

Let's address two more things:

• There is no malicious contact; that is just a crash unfortunately. Just two players running fast towards each other from different directions with no idea the other is headed towards them.
  • The runner is allowed to run inside the baseline as long as they don't interfere with a throw, so that is irrelevant and she is clearly surprised to be running into someone who is coming fast the other way so her arms come up. These things happen.

• The ball also wasn't caught; and with the video angle it is hard to see if the ball was fair or foul. If it is fair (it looked fair but I don't have an angle down the line), you have the above decision. If not and you decided the C was entitled to the ball, it is just a foul ball.
  • When a crash like this happens, it is extremely likely the umpire never even saw the drop or where the ball was as he probably looked at the crash happening.