Crash at 1st with No Double Base

[Wellphyt]

This past Saturday in one of our games we were playing on a field without a double base at 1st. We had a runner on 3rd with one out. The batter hits an infield grounder and is trying to beat it out to 1st. The batter-runner is running towards the outside of the 1st base bag, because there is no double base. The fielder throws to 1st base. Our runner at 3rd runs home on the throw to 1st. The batter-runner has no idea our runner at 3rd is going home on the throw because she is busy running to 1st trying to beat out her hit. The throw to 1st base beats the batter-runner by a couple of steps. The 1st base girl catches the ball, and instead of popping off the base to make her throw home, she stays on the base and pivots right into the baseline and clips the batter-runner in the hip.

The umpires have a conference and rule interference on the batter-runner. The umpire calls the batter out and also calls out the runner at 3rd who had scored on the throw to 1st. During my conversation with the umpire I pointed out that there was no double base and that my runner was attempting to beat out her hit and was running as far over towards foul ground as she could go without missing the bag. The umpire said that the batter-runner should have peeled off instead of running through the base. I felt that was a ridiculous comment considering this was a bang-bang play. The batter-runner was running full out trying to beat out an infield grounder and had no idea that the first base girl was going to throw it home. There is no way the batter-runner had time to react to the 1st base girl when she pivoted into the base line.

I can't find anything in the ASA rule book that deals with a crash at 1st base where there is no double base. As near as I can tell, in order for the umpire to call out the runner going home, he would have to rule that the batter-runner interfered with the throw home intentionally. If that was the ruling, in my opinion that is crazy considering there was no double base for the batter-runner to run to. The crash was clearly incidental. Had there been a double base the crash would have never happened.

Just wondering if anyone has ever had this happen? Did the umpires get this call correct?

 

[PA SB Dad]

The batter-runner has a 3 foot running lane outside of the baseline in which to run to first. If the batter-runner is running inside the baseline (ie in fair territory), then she can be called for interference if a play is being made on another runner after she has been called out. If she is in the 3 foot running lane (in foul ground), and does not intentionally interfere with the throw, I don't see how she can be called for interference.

 

[Wellphyt]

She was running on the chalk line which runs along the outside of the base. Had there been a double base, she would have been running more in foul territory. I teach all our players to run through the base when beating out an infield grounder.

 

[starsnuffer]

Wellphyt,

All of your points are valid. You're neglecting to be objective, however. Look at it from the point of view of the defense. The girl at 1st was also focused on her job and was not paying any more attention to the runner then the runner was paying to her. She fielded the ball cleanly and threw to home. The ball contacted the runner that was in the path of the ball due to no fault of the fielder.

This play could have gone either way, and it is a judgement call by the umpires. The umpires judged it the way that they believed they saw it.

My suggestion is to advocate for double bases, in a world of 300 dollar bats, are double bases really that big a deal to provide?

-W

 

[Lozza]

Honestly, I would have pulled out a double base myself from the kit. I'm not sure how this would be ruled, as I haven't seen a game without a double base since I was about five years old. I really don't know how it would be ruled.

 

[Wellphyt]

Wellphyt,

All of your points are valid. You're neglecting to be objective, however. Look at it from the point of view of the defense. The girl at 1st was also focused on her job and was not paying any more attention to the runner then the runner was paying to her. She fielded the ball cleanly and threw to home. The ball contacted the runner that was in the path of the ball due to no fault of the fielder.

This play could have gone either way, and it is a judgement call by the umpires. The umpires judged it the way that they believed they saw it.

My suggestion is to advocate for double bases, in a world of 300 dollar bats, are double bases really that big a deal to provide?

-W

The ball never hit the runner. The girl at 1st didn't move off the base when she made her throw to home after catching the ball from the fielder. So when she turned sideways to make her throw she turned right into the basepath and clipped the batter-runner as she was running by. The girl at 1st actually got her throw off to home.

I'm not trying to argue the call one way or the other. I'm just trying to figure out what the rule is in case it happens again. After the game the umpire apparently went to the tournament officials to get a rule clarification. I never heard the outcome of that meeting. I'm not sure why this field didn't have a double base. All the fields we play on have double bases, including the other three fields we played on at this park.

 

[quincy]

I would think this would fall into:

"If the ball, runner and the defensive player all arrive at the same time and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the collision rule(interference) or obstruction. This is merely incidental contact”.

Certainly a judgment call.

 

[druer]

From description the right call was made. You said the throw was a couple of steps ahead of batter runner. Not bang bang play. At that point if the runner interferes with fielder in fair territory which you said she did (chalk line is fair territory) she has intereferd with that fielder. Fielder has every right to catch ball and make throw on her head if she wants to. She doesn't have to do anything to avoid the runner.

 

[Coach JV]

How different is this than a runner who gets hit by a
batted ground ball running from 1>2nd or 2nd to 3rd.
Runner is in fair territory and gets hit by a live ball, the call stands

 

[Wellphyt]

Thanks to all those who responded. I agree that it is a judgment call. 1st base is unique because the batter-runner is allowed to over run the base without being at risk of being put out. Yes the batter-runner was out by a couple of steps, but the batter-runner was running full speed trying to beat out an infield grounder and was simply running through the base. The batter-runner had no idea what was about to happen. After the contact happened, both players had looks on their faces as if to say; "what just happened?".

What bothered me was the umpire calling the runner out at 3rd. I think he thought he had to call the runner out going home once he called interference. My interpretation of the rule is that the runner going home gets called out only if the umpire believes that the runner intentionally interferred with the fielder. The umpire did not believe the contact was intentional.

I knew the call could go either way when the homeplate umpire went up to the field umpire to conference and said; "I hate these kinds of plays".

We won the game 2-1, but it sure would have been nice going into the last inning with that 3rd run.