how would you ruled this?

[MTR]

It is completely asinine that they took out the word "intentional" from the rule book.

Don't disagree which is why I was running from committee to committee to try to dissuade the council members from approving this change. However.....

Here's the "logic" behind the decision: It is too difficult for an umpire to determine whether a player's actions were intentional. This puts too much burden on the umpire to read the player's mind.

...this is just the opposite of the reason offered.

Determining intent is not that difficult. If an umpire cannot read a player and his/her action, s/he probably should be an umpire. The "logic" is that the umpire should be able to tell whether the player's action caused interference and NOT ignore such an act using the "intent" and "mind-reading" excuse as a crutch for not making the appropriate call.

Stupidity #1: Once you change a rule, people are going to expect a different interpretation/application of the rule itself.

Stupidity #2: The interpretation of the rule remained the same; thus, still requiring umpires to judge and rule on intent.

Stupidity #3: Some interferences STILL require intent.

Stupidity #4: Judging intent is not difficult. Juries do it thousands of times a day across America; and, they are able to do it WITHOUT seeing the facts, but rather just hearing about them in most cases. You don't have to be a mind reader to judge intent. When I hit "Post Quick Reply" in a few minutes, I don't think anyone is going to conclude that I did so to brew a cup of coffee.

Stupidity #5: The definition of "Interference" and "Play" were changed a number of years back and eliminated a very important part of the rules themselves. Though, many still interpret the rule the same as before (see my comments above). Here's the problem: By defining a play as "an attempt to execute an out" as opposed to "an attempt to execute an out or field a batted ball," the rule book has eliminated the possibility of calling interference on a runner hindering a fielder's opportunity to simply cut the ball off from going through the middle. The umpire must judge whether the act prevented an out, rather than possibility stopping further advancement of the runners.

Actually, for ASA, the definition of play is the only definition that has been in the rule book. There was no definition in the book at that time. But I disagree that your "play" (which should be more specific if you are offering it as an exception to the rule) would allow an offensive player interfere without penalty.

Ok, let's look at another example. As a general rule on most teams I have been associated with, runners on 3rd base are told to lead-off in foul territory (so if a line drives or hard hit ground balls hit the runner they are not called out as they would have had they been in fair territory). As soon as the catcher receives the pitch, runners have been instructed to run back to 3rd base in fair territory in an attempt to make the throw more difficult from home to 3rd. If the catcher throws the ball and the runner is hit with the throw, is this INT (an act that hinders the defenses ability to execute a play)?

No, the runner is allowed to take whatever route they please, at any time, when running the bases as long as they are not interfering with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball. The only way it could be ruled INT is if the umpire believed the runner acted in a manner to interfere with the throw as opposed to advancing to the base.

 

[Umpire]

Actually, for ASA, the definition of play is the only definition that has been in the rule book. There was no definition in the book at that time. But I disagree that your "play" (which should be more specific if you are offering it as an exception to the rule) would allow an offensive player interfere without penalty.

I am not offering at as exception to the rule. I am using the play as an example of how the change in the definition of "play" impedes what should fairly be considered interference. An example can be R2 on 2nd base colliding with F6 who is diving to cut the ball off from going up the middle. If we say that there would be no possibility to execute an out on R2 or BR, then there is no interference. However, a consequence of the ball going through is that R2 can now score. In effect, R2 was able to advance further than she would have been able to had the contact not occurred.

 

[MTR]

I am not offering at as exception to the rule. I am using the play as an example of how the change in the definition of "play" impedes what should fairly be considered interference. An example can be R2 on 2nd base colliding with F6 who is diving to cut the ball off from going up the middle. If we say that there would be no possibility to execute an out on R2 or BR, then there is no interference. However, a consequence of the ball going through is that R2 can now score. In effect, R2 was able to advance further than she would have been able to had the contact not occurred.

That could be obstruction. Then again, 8.7.J.1 rule a runner out if s/he interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball. And yes, there would have to be a viable play which would mean there must be a possibility that the fielder's action could have resulted in an out.

I used to play with a guy who dove for every ball, and occasionally he would obstruct the runner. Under your scenario, an umpire could rule the runner out for interference just because the fielder was attempting to cut off a ball.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

@MTR - do you acknowledge it is possible for an offensive team member to act in a way that hinders the defense that didn't have a "viable play" at the time, but allows runner(s) to advance? If so, do the rules provide a remedy so the defensive team is not disadvantaged by this act?

In case you insist on specific examples, here are some possibilities...

Example #1: R1 on 1B. Catcher attempts late pick off and R1 easily beats throw. F3 is not in R1's way, but R1 goes out of her way to initiate contact with F3 after reaching the bag which prevents F3 from catching a good throw and allows R1 to advance to 2B.

Example #2: R1 on 3B and R2 on 1B. Wild pitch results in R1 scoring and R2 advancing to 2B. Ball ricochets to ODC and ODB kicks ball away which allows R2 to advance to 3B.

Example #3: Similar to #2, but R1 reverses direction after scoring for no apparent reason and F2's throw to F1 deflects off R1 which allows R2 to advance to 3B.

 

[MTR]

Example #1: R1 on 1B. Catcher attempts late pick off and R1 easily beats throw. F3 is not in R1's way, but R1 goes out of her way to initiate contact with F3 after reaching the bag which prevents F3 from catching a good throw and allows R1 to advance to 2B.

Well, if the was a runner off the base and the catcher was trying to put him/her out, that is a play. The fact that it was late is irrelevant, IMO. BTW, the runner owns the field, so I would have to see R1's actions.

Example #2: R1 on 3B and R2 on 1B. Wild pitch results in R1 scoring and R2 advancing to 2B. Ball ricochets to ODC and ODB kicks ball away which allows R2 to advance to 3B.

Dead ball, there was an active runner that could have been retired. Runner closest to home, R2, is ruled out. You may be thinking, what a minute, how was that a "play"? The runner leaving 2b created the opportunity for the defense to get an out. It seems many may look at this with a desire to have a no-doubt out available, and the definition only states that a play is an attempt of a defensive player to retire an offensive player. That would be any offensive player in jeopardy.

Example #3: Similar to #2, but R1 reverses direction after scoring for no apparent reason and F2's throw to F1 deflects off R1 which allows R2 to advance to 3B.

Nope. Not unless the pitcher was covering a base or trying to retire a runner.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

(Example #1) Well, if the was a runner off the base and the catcher was trying to put him/her out, that is a play. The fact that it was late is irrelevant, IMO. BTW, the runner owns the field, so I would have to see R1's actions.

- When does the runner have to be on the base for it to no longer be a play - before the catcher releases the ball; sets up to throw; catches the ball or (fill in the blank)?
- You didn't answer if it was not a play (i.e. runner on the base). So, no play (according to your definition), F3 is in foul territory, R1 stands up after getting back to base and pushes F3 which causes her to miss the thrown ball. Please adjust as necessary so runner is acting out of line.

(Example #2) Dead ball, there was an active runner that could have been retired. Runner closest to home, R2, is ruled out. You may be thinking, what a minute, how was that a "play"? The runner leaving 2b created the opportunity for the defense to get an out. It seems many may look at this with a desire to have a no-doubt out available, and the definition only states that a play is an attempt of a defensive player to retire an offensive player. That would be any offensive player in jeopardy.

Under which rule? To clarify, R2 left 2B after they saw the ball was kicked. Please confirm your answer applies as written. Based on your answer to the first example, I would expect it is because R2 left 1B and possibly hadn't reached 2B yet when the ball was kicked.

(Example #3) Nope. Not unless the pitcher was covering a base or trying to retire a runner.

Okay, can R1 push or tackle F2 while they're trying to throw the ball back to the pitcher so R2 can leave 2B and advance to 3B? If not, which rule stops it?

 

[Umpire]

That could be obstruction. Then again, 8.7.J.1 rule a runner out if s/he interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball. And yes, there would have to be a viable play which would mean there must be a possibility that the fielder's action could have resulted in an out.

I used to play with a guy who dove for every ball, and occasionally he would obstruct the runner. Under your scenario, an umpire could rule the runner out for interference just because the fielder was attempting to cut off a ball.

Here is the trouble with that explanation. In order to apply 8-7-J-1, we must turn to the definition of interference. When we read the definition of interference, we are directed to go to the definition of what a play is. When we read what a play is, it specifically states an attempt to execute an out.

Here, I am specifically telling you that there is no chance for an out. Not even the defender believes so. Rather, she just wants to cut the ball off. Additionally, under interference, only one defensive player is protected; so, you can't say that the center fielder may have been interfered with, since the reality is that nothing changed her play on the ball.

I also find it interesting that a fielder who has a legitimate chance to cut a ball off could be ruled for obstruction just because she didn't. You want her to disappear? That would fly in the face of so many arguments I have heard about expecting R1 to disappear after being declared out going to 2nd base with a further throw going to 1st base.

 

[MTR]

Here is the trouble with that explanation. In order to apply 8-7-J-1, we must turn to the definition of interference. When we read the definition of interference, we are directed to go to the definition of what a play is. When we read what a play is, it specifically states an attempt to execute an out.

Yeah, that is what I typed.

Here, I am specifically telling you that there is no chance for an out. Not even the defender believes so. Rather, she just wants to cut the ball off. Additionally, under interference, only one defensive player is protected; so, you can't say that the center fielder may have been interfered with, since the reality is that nothing changed her play on the ball.

Why should a defender who does NOT have the right of way on the field receive any protection? Hell, depending the speed of the ball, the catcher could run out and stop a ball from rolling to the OF fence, should that player also receive protection? I don't give a damn what you want to use as a definition of play, there still has to be a play on an offensive player, NOT the ball.

I also find it interesting that a fielder who has a legitimate chance to cut a ball off could be ruled for obstruction just because she didn't. You want her to disappear? That would fly in the face of so many arguments I have heard about expecting R1 to disappear after being declared out going to 2nd base with a further throw going to 1st base.

Maybe you really need to go read the ASA rule, for that matter the NFHS & NCAA rule that all call that obstruction. And yes, by rule, the defender needs to disappear or be called for obstruction.

No one should have to tell someone with your background and position that R1 should only not be expected to disappear, but until it can be absolutely determined to be out, should always continue to run toward that base.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Following this logic, what about interference in the case of the batter/runner who runs on a caught third strike that is loudly and clearly called by the umpire in an effort to draw an unneeded throw to allow other runners to advance?

 

[BretMan]

Following this logic, what about interference in the case of the batter/runner who runs on a caught third strike that is loudly and clearly called by the umpire in an effort to draw an unneeded throw to allow other runners to advance?

If it was "loudly and clearly" announced, then I wonder why the defense would make a throw. Wouldn't the defense be aware of the game situation? Wouldn't they realize that the batter who was just "loudly and clearly" called out is, in fact, already out and that a throw isn't needed?

In this case, it's only interference if the retired batter actually interferes with a play to retire one of the active runners already on base. A throw to "re-retire" the batter who has already been called out isn't interference. Since the batter is already out, a throw to first to "get the batter" is not a legitimate attempt to record an out, because there isn't one available there. It's just a dumb move by the defense.