Hard belive, he is worth listening too.
I was just saying ...
I was just saying ...
interference between home and 1st
- Thread starter Phathead
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Does it matter where the runner is running? If they are to the right in the lane and they can't see behind them does that make a difference?
I ask because we had a situation this weekend where the batter bunted to the right, left handed catcher picked up and all I saw was a lob to first base not in time to beat the runner. Runner was called out because she was not running in the lane, but in bounds to the left of the baseline. If the catcher had thrown properly she would have nailed the runner in the back which would have been an out (based on where she was running). Our call this weekend, though in our favor, I wasn't sure about because the umpire had to make a judgement on whether the thrown ball was lobbed on purpose versus an error.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I ask because we had a situation this weekend where the batter bunted to the right, left handed catcher picked up and all I saw was a lob to first base not in time to beat the runner. Runner was called out because she was not running in the lane, but in bounds to the left of the baseline. If the catcher had thrown properly she would have nailed the runner in the back which would have been an out (based on where she was running). Our call this weekend, though in our favor, I wasn't sure about because the umpire had to make a judgement on whether the thrown ball was lobbed on purpose versus an error.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One of the thresholds for an interference call is that there is a play to be interfered with.
I wasn't there and didn't see the plays in question in the OP, and can only go from the description provided. The mention of "altering the path to the ball" by the defense is really not quite enough information. The OP mentions that it probably would have been a diving catch if the pop fly would have been caught at all. Perhaps the umpire judged that the defensive player had no chance of making the catch, even without the presence of the runner in the vicinity. In that case, there would be no interference as there was no opportunity to make an out.
I wasn't there and didn't see the plays in question in the OP, and can only go from the description provided. The mention of "altering the path to the ball" by the defense is really not quite enough information. The OP mentions that it probably would have been a diving catch if the pop fly would have been caught at all. Perhaps the umpire judged that the defensive player had no chance of making the catch, even without the presence of the runner in the vicinity. In that case, there would be no interference as there was no opportunity to make an out.
This situation is different from the OP, in that this play is discussing the running lane and the throw to first base.
In order for interference to be called here, the runner must be out of the running lane and there must be a quality throw to first base, in other words, a throw that the fielder at first base should be expected to catch. The applicable rule here is about interference with the fielder at first taking the throw, not the throw itself.
Just because the defense elects to lob the ball over the runner is not a valid reason to call interference in this case.
It sounds like the catcher needs some instruction on moving their feet to create a clear throwing lane.
This is what is wondering about, if the likelihood of an out would make a difference. I know based on the lack speed by the defenders that any out would have been tough, possible, but tough to get. That's why I put up very little argument. I just wanted a little more clarification on how the call is determined if called.
I guess this rule is why some coaches tell their catcher that they have to nail that runner in the back to get the out.
Shouldn't the rule be more like the defensive obstruction ruling where the perceived interference should get the call, not having to throw at the runner to prove she was in the way?
And if a catcher purposely plunks the runner they wont be playing in the game anymore. The rule is to protect the defense player at 1st so they can make a catch, it was never intended to be a free out for plunking the runner.
How (theoretically) does throwing the ball into the runner get the out???
If the runner is in the way and you have to make a throw that would have resulted in an out to get the call, you will hit the runner throwing directly to the bag. An earlier poster said it was the catcher's fault for throwing a rainbow to first, thus not getting the interference call.
