I had the same thought process and I agree with the rest of the explanation as well. If I were on the field I'd feel like I should have called something, but I just don't see how you can directly justify any interference. This is one of those scenarios that tends to end with a MSU solution when an umpire feels like they just have to do SOMETHING.
Batter Runner Interference
- Thread starter cnardone
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Not sure that is the fairest thing to do either. Why return R3 to third? They likely would have scored on the throw to second anyway. There was only one out.
Isn’t there an exception about the BR and the area in front of home plate?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anyone who has read my posts, knows that I am not a proponent of MSU, and try to apply the rules as written. When I said "fairest" it is acknowledging that both teams did something wrong: The defense threw to second when there was no possibility of an out there, and the offense created contact with the catcher during that ill-advised throw (Note that I am not calling it interference).
If we do nothing as an umpire, you have runners at 1st and 2nd, 1 out and 1 run in. This ignores the fact that the offense did SOMETHING wrong when they caused the contact with the C in her throw.
If you apply the interference rules, you have runners at 1st and 3rd, 2 out, no run in. This ignores the fact that the defense really had no reason to be throwing to first, and absent that throw, you have no interference to begin with.
The third, MSU, middle of the road result would be, bases loaded, 1 out, no run in....that is what I meant by "fairest". YMMV and it is NOT something I am suggesting any umpire should do, but, absent any rules guidance, it will most likely get you only mild kvetching from both HCs rather than one or the other blowing a major gasket.
As soon as you say R3 returns to 3B on the interference, I’m looking for an out if I’m the defensive coach. Can’t have interference without an out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There was a throw back home, but it was not nearly in time.
- May 29, 2015
- 3,813
- 113
As @mmeece said, it may be one of those situations where you feel as if you should be calling something. While I agree your proposal may be the fairest, but getting it wrong twice is not getting it right.
- May 29, 2015
- 3,813
- 113
Ahh ... so did the batter-runner interfere with the throw back to home? (Suspecting I already know the answer.)
If not, then the coach is wanting the offense to be penalized now for the defense's mental error on a previously attempted play in non-playable situation. That checks out.
Last edited:
- May 27, 2022
- 412
- 63
IMO
1. The batter-runner has no 'right' to first while interfering with the defense. After ball 4, she is no different that a runner from 1st to 2nd and cannot get in the way of the defense making their play.
2. It is really hard to tell from a textual description, but the umpire has to take intent into account*. If the runner deliberately tried to get in the way of the catcher, then interference is likely appropriate. In most ball 4 calls, the runner takes a second to listen for affirmation before dropping her bat and then running. I'd be really interested to see how that batter handles ball 4 without any runners on.
3. Technically, it is illegal for the catcher to throw to any player except the pitcher unless a play on a runner. In this case, you could argue that the catcher was wrong (although as other's commented that is a strerch too far)
End of the story, I think TMIB is right - the catcher made a throw that was not an attempted out - no interference. Sounds like a little bit of a trick play by the offense which the defense fell for.
*- One training video this year showed a RH batter trying to bunt with the runner at first was trying to steal. The bunter stumbled into the area in front of home plate and disrupted the catcher's throw. It looks innocuous until they show you the previous pitch/bunt attempt where the batter doesn't get close to getting in the throwing lane.
1. The batter-runner has no 'right' to first while interfering with the defense. After ball 4, she is no different that a runner from 1st to 2nd and cannot get in the way of the defense making their play.
2. It is really hard to tell from a textual description, but the umpire has to take intent into account*. If the runner deliberately tried to get in the way of the catcher, then interference is likely appropriate. In most ball 4 calls, the runner takes a second to listen for affirmation before dropping her bat and then running. I'd be really interested to see how that batter handles ball 4 without any runners on.
3. Technically, it is illegal for the catcher to throw to any player except the pitcher unless a play on a runner. In this case, you could argue that the catcher was wrong (although as other's commented that is a strerch too far)
End of the story, I think TMIB is right - the catcher made a throw that was not an attempted out - no interference. Sounds like a little bit of a trick play by the offense which the defense fell for.
*- One training video this year showed a RH batter trying to bunt with the runner at first was trying to steal. The bunter stumbled into the area in front of home plate and disrupted the catcher's throw. It looks innocuous until they show you the previous pitch/bunt attempt where the batter doesn't get close to getting in the throwing lane.
3. It was a 3-2 count. If it was a close pitch the catcher was likely going for a strike em out/ throw em out. She wouldn’t wait for the call to be made before throwing. Nothing illegal about that at all. Too much unknown here. And as mentioned above, maybe the interference was call on the throw back to home.
Even if interference was called on the throw to 2nd, it seems the penalty was incorrect. BR should have been called out and runners returned to originals base.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- May 29, 2015
- 3,813
- 113
My posts may have made it sound as if I was saying the catcher should not have been throwing to second. I don't have an objection to the catcher throwing to second. As a few others have said, I am going to assume the catcher was reacting and throwing with the runner running, which is not uncommon.
The point I was trying to make (and may have obfuscated) was that there was no out to be gotten at second. So if the coach was arguing the batter runner interfered with the throw to second, that argument is moot in my opinion.
The throw coming back to to the plate has nothing to do with the throw going down to second. If the coach is making an argument that the batter runner interfered with a play at the plate (not a throw), he might have a valid argument. The initial OP did not present it that way.
NFHS 3-5-5
ART. 5 . . . Offensive team personnel, other than the base coach, shall not be near a base to which a runner is advancing or returning; nor shall anyone fail to vacate any area (including a coach's box) needed by a fielder in an attempt to put out a batter or runner. (8-6-16)
PENALTY: (Art. 5) The ball is dead. The runner closest to home is out and all runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
.
The point I was trying to make (and may have obfuscated) was that there was no out to be gotten at second. So if the coach was arguing the batter runner interfered with the throw to second, that argument is moot in my opinion.
The throw coming back to to the plate has nothing to do with the throw going down to second. If the coach is making an argument that the batter runner interfered with a play at the plate (not a throw), he might have a valid argument. The initial OP did not present it that way.
NFHS 3-5-5
ART. 5 . . . Offensive team personnel, other than the base coach, shall not be near a base to which a runner is advancing or returning; nor shall anyone fail to vacate any area (including a coach's box) needed by a fielder in an attempt to put out a batter or runner. (8-6-16)
PENALTY: (Art. 5) The ball is dead. The runner closest to home is out and all runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
.
