Interference?

Easton33 said:

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.

Click to expand...

What is absurd is that you believe that. What is absurd is how you would act based on the previously cited rule that a fielder kicks a play and take a step backward into a runner who is running around the fielder to avoid an INT call actually being called for INT because USSSA includes "in any direction" in their rule.

Easton33 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does happen. Been there, seen that, called that. Comp is 100% correct on this. The runner chooses a path to AVOID interfering with the defense while doing their job. All of a sudden, the defender fails and unexpectedly moves into that runner's path.

MTR said:

Actually, it does happen. Been there, seen that, called that. Comp is 100% correct on this. The runner chooses a path to AVOID interfering with the defense while doing their job. All of a sudden, the defender fails and unexpectedly moves into that runner's path.

Click to expand...

Both of you are wrong on this. Been there, seen it too. Runner from 2b on a steal and 3rd playing even with the bag, hard ball hits her glove in the palm falls directly in front of her, while she reaches down between to get the ball contact is made and she fails to get the out. USA calls the runner safe in this scenario, USSSA calls her out. The runner should be out because the defender has a play on the ball still. You guys are focusing on moving backward after the ball has passed the defender

Play 1-51 2013

PLAY 1-51
R1 is on 1B when B2 hits a grounder to F4. The ball bounces off F4’s chest and when F4 reaches down to pick up the ball; R1 collides with F4 in the baseline.
RULING: This is interference because F4 is still in the act of fielding the ball. The ball is dead. (1- INTERFERENCE; 8-7J[1])

Easton33 said:

Play 1-51 2013

PLAY 1-51
R1 is on 1B when B2 hits a grounder to F4. The ball bounces off F4’s chest and when F4 reaches down to pick up the ball; R1 collides with F4 in the baseline.
RULING: This is interference because F4 is still in the act of fielding the ball. The ball is dead. (1- INTERFERENCE; 8-7J[1])

Click to expand...

What rule set is that from?

ASA play 1-74 in 2007 edition also.

Easton33 said:

ASA play 1-74 in 2007 edition also.

Click to expand...

And the play I pasted is from March 2014 which would take precedence over the 2007 case play. Im not positive, but I believe the section of the rule about intentional was added sometime after 2007. So no, MTR and I are not wrong about the USA ruling in such a situation.

And no, I am not focusing on her moving backward. In USA the fielder gets one shot at fielding the ball. If they misplay the ball in any direction the runner must then do something intentional to be called for interference. In USSSA and NFHS the fielder is protected for a step and a reach in any direction. But, her is where their rule makes no sense. F6 playing deep behind the line, ground ball hit to F6 who sets up to field it well behind the baseline and the runner from 2nd is taking a direct line to 3rd. F6 misplays the ball and knocks it into the runners path and the runner could not avoid knocking the ball away. In both NFHS and USSSA the runner could not avoid contact with the ball and there is no penalty, but, change the situation to F6 knocks the ball into the runners path, and then steps forward directly into the path to retrieve the ball and the runner could not avoid and suddenly it becomes interference.

I am saying both of you are wrong in the belief that ASA has the better rule set on this play.
The above scenario. You are talking contact with the ball and in this case I agree with you. Then you add contact with the runner and it is obviously more than a step and a reach and I still agree with you.

Easton33 said:

I am saying both of you are wrong in the belief that ASA has the better rule set on this play.
The above scenario. You are talking contact with the ball and in this case I agree with you. Then you add contact with the runner and it is obviously more than a step and a reach and I still agree with you.

Click to expand...

The USA rules maintain more of a level playing field and are not advantageous to the defense like the NFHS rule.

BTW, you can believe we are wrong, but that just makes you just as wrong as you think we are.

The other problem with the USSSA and NFHS rules sets in this instance is they are injecting judgement into the call by asking the umpire to determine how far "a step and a reach" is. If the ball bounces off of the defender and is rolling in front of them and they take one step forward into the runners path then the umpire has to decide if the ball was within a step and a reach at that time since the ball may continue to roll another 10 feet after the runner contacts the defender.