Not absurd at all. A runner interfering with a fielder when there is still a play that can be made is absurd. There should be more protection for the infielder in USA. Hot one hopper hit to 2b and it pops out of glove and it's ok to make some contact with the fielder?! That's absurd. USSSA has the better rule in this case.
Interference?
- Thread starter S Spiff
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Not absurd at all. A runner interfering with a fielder when there is still a play that can be made is absurd. There should be more protection for the infielder in USA. Hot one hopper hit to 2b and it pops out of glove and it's ok to make some contact with the fielder?! That's absurd. USSSA has the better rule in this case.
The reasoning behind the USA ruling is the runner cannot be expected to avoid a fielder who suddenly moves into their path because they missed the ball. It is balancing out the protection for both the defense and the offense. The defense is protected from committing obstruction while they are in the act of fielding a batted ball, but once the ball has been misplayed by the defense the protection from committing interference no moves to the runner unless they commit some act that is judged to be intentional.
2br02b
Trabant swing
- Jul 25, 2017
- 303
- 43
I can see the logic in both rule sets (USSSA and USA), but...
Having seen the USSSA ruling in action 2 weeks ago, I am not much of a fan. We had a fast runner on 2b - hard hit to SS who bobbled it behind base path. The ball stayed in front of the SS and rolled towards the pitcher, SS chased it and runner and SS collided. Runner was called out.
Having seen the USSSA ruling in action 2 weeks ago, I am not much of a fan. We had a fast runner on 2b - hard hit to SS who bobbled it behind base path. The ball stayed in front of the SS and rolled towards the pitcher, SS chased it and runner and SS collided. Runner was called out.
You say "chased it". Was the ball still within a step and reach from where she initially tried to field the ball?
The explanation you provided is not unreasonable but this is where the USSSA rule is better. It provides a step and reach, there will be no running in front of anyone just protects a fielder that has a ball in close proximity. After seeing this applied correctly 1 time, it will make perfect sense to everyone.
2br02b
Trabant swing
- Jul 25, 2017
- 303
- 43
She took a huge step forward and was stretching for the ball - didn't get it before collision, but it might have been in reach. One umpire game BTW.
And in my opinion the NFHS and USSSA rule is only better for the defense to the detriment of the offense. USA recognizes the runner has most likely chosen a path that is going to avoid the fielder making the play on the batted ball and cannot be expected to instantly change direction or stop when the fielder boots the ball and is suddenly in their path. As already stated, USA balances the protection between the defense and the offense.
My biggest problem with the NFHS and USSSA rules are they do recognize a runner cannot be expected to avoid a ball deflected by a fielder and if they are contacted by a deflected ball and could not avoid it there is no penalty. Yet they do expect the runner to avoid a fielder who suddenly appears in their path due to misplaying the ball. The defense is the one who has made a mistake, why should the offense be penalized for a mistake out of their control?
A step and a reach from initial contact is not making a defender magically appear in anyone's way. If a 1B runner going hard to 2nd is expected to veer off at last second so SS can turn 2, veering a step and reach for defender is definitely within the ability of the runner.
Another way to look at it is that the USSSA rule is expecting a runner to avoid coming closer to a fielder than a step and a reach away to avoid interference since the runner cannot anticipate whether the ball will be fielded cleanly or not. That's a pretty wide berth to expect, IMO.
In your situation a runner going to a base is NOT expected to veer off. To be called for interference the runner must commit some act, and running the bases as they would be expected to is not an act of interference. Now, veering off and getting in the way would be an act of interference.
A runner choosing a path to go behind a defensive player making a play on a batted ball should not have to give themselves 10 extra feet of clearance because the fielder boots the ball behind her and turns directly into the runners path. That is the defenses mistake, not the offense.
Last edited:
Similar threads
