Interference?

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Jul 4, 2013
126
43
With runners at first and second, a ground ball was hit to short. The shortstop started the play positioned behind the baseline, and the runner from second is running a direct path from second to third. The shortstop charges the ball and attempts to field it in the baseline right before the runner arrives. The shortstop got to the ball before any collision but didn't field the ball cleanly. The ball popped out of her glove toward the pitcher. But very quickly after the shortstop dropped the ball, the runner from second collided with her. They both fell.

At least that's what I believe I saw. The runner from second was mine, so I'm biased. She says she was watching the ball to try and make sure she didn't get hit and didn't see the shortstop charging in until it was too late to avoid her.

The ump ultimately called the runner out for interference. ASA rules (USA I suppose). No one got hurt, and it wasn't a gamechanging play. As I sat waiting for them to decide what to do, I thought (alternatively, I was hoping) the runner might be called safe since the shortstop had already dropped the ball before the collision. In fact, I thought it might have been obstruction since she didn't have the ball when the collision happened. But the collision was very quick after the attempt to field the ball. If the ump thought the fielder might have picked up the ball and made a play on someone but for the collision, I'd say that was doubtful. But I don't even know if that matters.

Where do you draw the line? When does responsibility shift from the runner giving the fielder a chance to make a play to the fielder getting out of the runner's path?
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
With runners at first and second, a ground ball was hit to short. The shortstop started the play positioned behind the baseline, and the runner from second is running a direct path from second to third. The shortstop charges the ball and attempts to field it in the baseline right before the runner arrives. The shortstop got to the ball before any collision but didn't field the ball cleanly. The ball popped out of her glove toward the pitcher. But very quickly after the shortstop dropped the ball, the runner from second collided with her. They both fell.

At least that's what I believe I saw. The runner from second was mine, so I'm biased. She says she was watching the ball to try and make sure she didn't get hit and didn't see the shortstop charging in until it was too late to avoid her.

The ump ultimately called the runner out for interference. ASA rules (USA I suppose). No one got hurt, and it wasn't a gamechanging play. As I sat waiting for them to decide what to do, I thought (alternatively, I was hoping) the runner might be called safe since the shortstop had already dropped the ball before the collision. In fact, I thought it might have been obstruction since she didn't have the ball when the collision happened. But the collision was very quick after the attempt to field the ball. If the ump thought the fielder might have picked up the ball and made a play on someone but for the collision, I'd say that was doubtful. But I don't even know if that matters.

Where do you draw the line? When does responsibility shift from the runner giving the fielder a chance to make a play to the fielder getting out of the runner's path?

USA rules and case plays say this is not interference, as long as the runner did not intentionally run into the fielder. The fielder gets one chance to field the ball, once it is deflected the runner must do something the umpire judges to be intentional to be called for interference. Not only does the case play say it is not interference, but should be ruled obstruction on the fielder.
 
Jul 4, 2013
126
43
Thanks. That is pretty much how I saw it, but of course, they may have seen something different.
 

Strike2

Allergic to BS
Nov 14, 2014
2,044
113
Not so fast...

It really is a judgement call. The ball popping out of the glove doesn't necessarily end the fielder's play on the ball, or relieve the runner of responsibility to avoid contact. The OP said the ball went back towards the pitcher, but we don't know if it was one foot away or six feet. If, in the ump's judgement, the fielder still has a reasonable shot at a play, the interference rule would still apply, regardless of runner intent. If it actually "deflected" away from the fielder prior to contact, and that fielder could not have recovered it and just stood in the runner's way, then it shouldn't be interference.

The way it's described, it's a "bang-bang" play. Alternatively, the umpire might have judged that the runner's path was too close to the fielder and caused the fielder to be distracted and misplay the ball. Contact isn't necessary for an interference call.

If the ball, fielder, and runner all reach the same spot, interference is a likely call. It's a challenge to keep track of the ball and fielder while running, but it becomes easier with experience. It's always safer to run behind the fielder, and it's legal for the runner to run out of the baseline while attempting to avoid a collision with a fielder going for the ball.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
That is not what the USA rule and case play say. Once the ball is deflected the runner must do something intentional to interfere with the fielder. It does not matter if the fielder still has an opportunity to make the play, it is now a deflected ball and once defl cted the runner must do something the umpire judges to be intentional. Nfhs does continue to protect the fielder within a step and reach but USA does not.
 

Strike2

Allergic to BS
Nov 14, 2014
2,044
113
Comp...please point me to the page in the USA rulebook that says that.

Further...define "deflected". Is that a change in the velocity vector that sends the ball in a different direction, or it simply falls out of the glove at the player's feet?

In the case of the former, I'm with you. With the latter, I've yet to see an umpire not call interference. I can only imagine a coach's reaction if you told him that a runner colliding with a fielder with the ball within reach is not interference.
 
Last edited:
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
Don't have my rule book on me at moment but the rule under interference says intentionally with a deflected batted ball. And the case play that goes along with it is a ground ball to f6 that is bobbled and dropped. As f6 is bending over to pick up the ball the runner from second collides with the fielder. The ruling is it is not interference as the ball was deflected by the fielder and the runner must do something intentional to be called for interference. It goes on to state not only is it not interference but should be ruled obstruction on f6. I can get the rule and case play later.

If an umpire does call a runner out for interference on a deflected ball you need to approach and ask the reasoning for their ruling. If they say it was because the fielder still had an opportunity for an out you now have grounds for a protest. It must be judged to be intentional by the runner once the ball was muffed by the fielder. As already stated, nfhs and USSSA are different and protect the fielder for a step and reach.
 
Last edited:
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
The usa rule is 8-7-J-4.

The case play:
PLAY: With R1 on 2B, B2 hits a ground ball to F6 who tries to field the ball and bobbles it. R1, trying to advance to 3B, attempts to get around F6 who is picking up the deflected batted ball. In doing so, R1 bumps F6 advancing to 3B. The umpire calls “dead ball” and calls R1 out for interference because the ball has not passed F6 and F6 still had an opportunity to make an out on B2.
Ruling: Incorrect ruling. If protested correctly, the umpire should reverse his ruling and “obstruction” should be called since this interference was not intentional. When a runner intentionally interferes with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected batted ball, the ball is dead and the runner is out. All other runners must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. Rule 8, Section 7J[4]
 
May 17, 2012
2,804
113
USSSA:

The fielder is still considered to be making an initial play if the fielder fails to gain
control of the batted ground ball and is within a step and a reach (in any direction) of the
spot of the initial play.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
USSSA:

The fielder is still considered to be making an initial play if the fielder fails to gain
control of the batted ground ball and is within a step and a reach (in any direction) of the
spot of the initial play.

Yeah, that is a little absurd.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,468
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top