how would you ruled this?

[BretMan]

Ok, please cite section in the rule book that states the above.

Comp pretty well answered this. But if we were to interpret the rule you quoted the way you're interpreting it, then how would you rule on this play:

Runner on first. Batter safely hits to the outfield. As R1 advances to third, the ball is thrown there. The ball hits the runner in the back before F5 can catch it and rolls into foul territory. R1 continues to home and the batter-runner goes into second base.

Do you have R1 out for interference? The runner was touched by the thrown ball and that not only may have prevented an out, but also allowed the runners to take an extra base. Have you ever seen interference called on a play like that? I would hope not!

There's a different standard for interfering with the actual fielder herself, with a batted ball or with a thrown ball. For interference with a thrown ball, the runner needs to be doing something other than just running the bases in a normal, expected, legal manner.

 

[Rocketech1]

Comp pretty well answered this. But if we were to interpret the rule you quoted the way you're interpreting it, then how would you rule on this play:

Runner on first. Batter safely hits to the outfield. As R1 advances to third, the ball is thrown there. The ball hits the runner in the back before F5 can catch it and rolls into foul territory. R1 continues to home and the batter-runner goes into second base.

Do you have R1 out for interference? The runner was touched by the thrown ball and that not only may have prevented an out, but also allowed the runners to take an extra base. Have you ever seen interference called on a play like that? I would hope not!

There's a different standard for interfering with the actual fielder herself, with a batted ball or with a thrown ball. For interference with a thrown ball, the runner needs to be doing something other than just running the bases in a normal, expected, legal manner.

My original point is that you stated that a runner can continue on a straight path to the base they were going to immediately after being out. This is an interpretation of the base running rules that you and many umpires probably have but since you cannot cite a rulebook section that states this to be true, it shouldn't be relied upon IMO. However, there is a code section for my argument that states a runner is out for interference if they act in a way to hinder the throw of a defensive player trying to make a play. Back to my example, R1 is forced out at 2B, the "act" is the runner continuing to go to 2B immediately after being called out, then is hit with a thrown ball which hinders the defenses ability to make a play. There seems to be more authority in my interpretation than yours in which you state R1 can continue in a straight path to 2B even when called out? You may not like the interference rule the way it is written but that seems to controlling rule here, absent a rule to the contrary. Again, if anyone has any authority that a baserunner has a right to continue to the next base even after being called out, I would love to read it?

Furthermore, your example above has different facts than mine because the runner was not retired when hit with the ball and the runner is not running directly at the the defensive player who is trying to make a play. I see the two examples as different and distinct.

 

[BretMan]

However, there is a code section for my argument that states a runner is out for interference if they act in a way to hinder the throw of a defensive player trying to make a play.

This has already been pointed out twice, but is worth repeating...

You're confusing interfering with the actual fielder making the throw and interfering with the ball itself after the throw has already been made. Two different things and the "code" (actually, the rule supplement) you quoted refers to interference with the fielder, not the ball.

You may not like the interference rule the way it is written...

Not really sure what you're getting at here as I never commented on my like or dislike of the rule as written.

Furthermore, your example above has different facts than mine because the runner was not retired when hit with the ball and the runner is not running directly at the the defensive player who is trying to make a play. I see the two examples as different and distinct.

But the rules you quoted make NO reference to the hit runner already being out or not, or which direction the runner is heading in relation to the fielder or the throw. How can you use a rule that doesn't say anything about the runner already being out, or their direction, then say it only applies in some situations where the runner is already out or heading some certain direction? Good luck finding any rule or interpretation that backs that up!

 

[Rocketech1]

This has already been pointed out twice, but is worth repeating...

You're confusing interfering with the actual fielder making the throw and interfering with the ball itself after the throw has already been made.

Nope. Here is what is written in the rules supplement:

33 - Interference (page 125-126, ASA 2012 Official Rules of Softball)

A. Runner Interference includes:

3. Interfering with a thrown ball.

I don't know how more clear the rulebook can be on this. If the runner acts to hinder a thrown ball it's offensive interference.

So where is your authority on this issue?

 

[Comp]

A case play I found from a 2006 FED case plays.

SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. Unless R1 intentionally made a move to interfere with the thrown ball, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)

 

[MTR]

My original point is that you stated that a runner can continue on a straight path to the base they were going to immediately after being out. This is an interpretation of the base running rules that you and many umpires probably have but since you cannot cite a rulebook section that states this to be true, it shouldn't be relied upon IMO. However, there is a code section for my argument that states a runner is out for interference if they act in a way to hinder the throw of a defensive player trying to make a play. Back to my example, R1 is forced out at 2B, the "act" is the runner continuing to go to 2B immediately after being called out, then is hit with a thrown ball which hinders the defenses ability to make a play. There seems to be more authority in my interpretation than yours in which you state R1 can continue in a straight path to 2B even when called out? You may not like the interference rule the way it is written but that seems to controlling rule here, absent a rule to the contrary. Again, if anyone has any authority that a baserunner has a right to continue to the next base even after being called out, I would love to read it?

Furthermore, your example above has different facts than mine because the runner was not retired when hit with the ball and the runner is not running directly at the the defensive player who is trying to make a play. I see the two examples as different and distinct.

Bret & Comp have tried. Running the bases is NOT an ACT of interference. Altering one's path, before or after being retired, could be an ACT of interference.

You can try to turn it anyway you wish, but the runner must do something to interfere with a play and simply running the bases as permitted by rule is not an ACT of interference.

And to avoid confusion among those reading, please refer to these as rules. The "code" is administrative and organizational document and has little to do with the playing rules of the game.

 

[BretMan]

Nope. Here is what is written in the rules supplement...

This isn't the same passage you quoted earlier.

You're quoting one thing, then when someone points out that what you quoted doesn't apply, you're saying they're wrong and quoting something entirely different.

Be consistent, please.

 

[BretMan]

A case play I found from a 2006 FED case plays.

SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. Unless R1 intentionally made a move to interfere with the thrown ball, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)

"Force play slide rule"? Sounds like a baseball interp...but the end result would still be the same.

 

[Comp]

Bret, Yes, that wording is weird but found it posted on a forum talking about softball. I dont have FED case plays going back that far so cant check it, but as you said the outcome would be the same either baseball or softball.

 

[Rocketech1]

This isn't the same passage you quoted earlier.

You're quoting one thing, then when someone points out that what you quoted doesn't apply, you're saying they're wrong and quoting something entirely different.

Be consistent, please.

Just so we are clear, I am not trying to confuse you guys about the rulebook. You guys are a lot more familiar with the rules of softball than I am. For my own education I wanted to read what the rulebook says about baserunning and what the guidance is on this particular play that we are discussing.

I first looked at "Rule 8 - Batter-Baserunner and Runner" and noted

"Section 7 - The Runner is Out" and rule J - When a runner interferes:

1) With a fielder attempting to field a batted fair ball or a foul fly ball or
2) With a fielder attempting to throw the ball, or
3) With a thrown ball

I then looked at the Supplemental Rule Section #33 - Interference which defines "Interference" which is "the act of an offensive player or team member that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play" and further states:

A. Runner Interference includes:

3) Interfering with a thrown ball.

So I have authority for the opinion that R1, who is forced out at 2B but continues to the base anyways (who Bretman says has right to do so) and is hit by the thrown ball could, in the umpires judgment, be an "act" that hinders the defensive players ability to execute a play.

You guys keep saying that the "act" of continuing to the next base is permitted even when R1 is called "out" but you cannot find a single rule to support your opinion on this. Which makes me believe that you guys are reading into the rules something that is maybe "implied" but not specifically stated. That's fine, but at least you can admit that it doesn't exist but is "understood" to be the case.

MTR - thanks for explaining its not a "code" section, noted.