how would you ruled this?

[MTR]

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.

Maybe we keep saying "act" because that is how Interference is defined in the ASA rule book:

Rule 1 "INTERFERENCE. The act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary."

You are not the first with this argument, but like the others, you want to provide proof of something that is not there. In November of 2006, I ran from committee to committee at the ASA National Council Meeting trying to persuade the members to NOT remove the word intentional from most of the rules addressing interference. The argument of those pressing for that change was that the word "intentional" does not appear in the definition of INT. I even lobbied committee members in the hotel parking lot when the buildings were evacuated because of a fire alarm. Quite a few members of the national staff agreed, but those with the weight supported whatever the ASA pushed, so they removed the "intent" requirement from most INT rules.


I warned them that my fear was that the change would be confused as an expectation to call everything interference that they believe affected a play, intentional or avoidable or not. The Supervisor of Umpires simply stated in the umpire's committee that there was no expectation of change the manner in which the rules were applied, but it is just removing the word and expecting umpires to determine when someone committed and act of interference. Unfortunately, very few state/metro UICs attend these meetings and they are the first step in passing information to the local associations, so what I was told in Colorado Springs got lost on the way down the line of communications and in some cases, as is pointed out by this type of post on every softball board, a couple times a year tends to justify my fears and that should not make anyone happy especially me.

 

[Rocketech1]

Maybe we keep saying "act" because that is how Interference is defined in the ASA rule book:

Rule 1 "INTERFERENCE. The act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary."

You are not the first with this argument, but like the others, you want to provide proof of something that is not there. In November of 2006, I ran from committee to committee at the ASA National Council Meeting trying to persuade the members to NOT remove the word intentional from most of the rules addressing interference. The argument of those pressing for that change was that the word "intentional" does not appear in the definition of INT. I even lobbied committee members in the hotel parking lot when the buildings were evacuated because of a fire alarm. Quite a few members of the national staff agreed, but those with the weight supported whatever the ASA pushed, so they removed the "intent" requirement from most INT rules.


I warned them that my fear was that the change would be confused as an expectation to call everything interference that they believe affected a play, intentional or avoidable or not. The Supervisor of Umpires simply stated in the umpire's committee that there was no expectation of change the manner in which the rules were applied, but it is just removing the word and expecting umpires to determine when someone committed and act of interference. Unfortunately, very few state/metro UICs attend these meetings and they are the first step in passing information to the local associations, so what I was told in Colorado Springs got lost on the way down the line of communications and in some cases, as is pointed out by this type of post on every softball board, a couple times a year tends to justify my fears and that should not make anyone happy especially me.

As you know, there is a whole section in the ASA rulebook that states when a runner is NOT out, "Section 8 - Runner is Not Out (A - P)" where the rule makers could have easily stated that "running to a base in the ordinary course of a play cannot cause an act of interference" or some similar language but they didn't include it. So we have to go with the rules as written and leave it up to the umpire's judgment of whether or not the "act" of running to a base after being called out is interference by the baserunner. I certainly can see an argument for it being interference without other authority being presented.

The only issue I have with calling the runner for interference would be if teams on defense thought it was ok to intentionally throw the ball at a runner who was already forced out and thereby getting the second out (e.g. batter-baserunner going to 1st base). In my opinion, this action of the defense would not be in the spirit of the game.

IMO, an update to the rules would be appropriate to better clarify the rights of the runner as they are running the bases and what is required (or not required of them) immediately after being put out. Thanks.

 

[MTR]

As you know, there is a whole section in the ASA rulebook that states when a runner is NOT out, "Section 8 - Runner is Not Out (A - P)" where the rule makers could have easily stated that "running to a base in the ordinary course of a play cannot cause an act of interference" or some similar language but they didn't include it. So we have to go with the rules as written and leave it up to the umpire's judgment of whether or not the "act" of running to a base after being called out is interference by the baserunner. I certainly can see an argument for it being interference without other authority being presented.

The only issue I have with calling the runner for interference would be if teams on defense thought it was ok to intentionally throw the ball at a runner who was already forced out and thereby getting the second out (e.g. batter-baserunner going to 1st base). In my opinion, this action of the defense would not be in the spirit of the game.

IMO, an update to the rules would be appropriate to better clarify the rights of the runner as they are running the bases and what is required (or not required of them) immediately after being put out. Thanks.

Maybe we should include the order in which the bases should be touched, also. There is a sentence in the book that also says it is obstruction if a player blocks the base without the ball and as we all know, that just isn't true.

There is no need to cover every negative scenario, especially when it is already covered in the book. If they dummied down the entire book, War and Peace would look like a one-act play.

As noted before, this is nothing new.

 

[Rocketech1]

Maybe we should include the order in which the bases should be touched, also. There is a sentence in the book that also says it is obstruction if a player blocks the base without the ball and as we all know, that just isn't true.

There is no need to cover every negative scenario, especially when it is already covered in the book. If they dummied down the entire book, War and Peace would look like a one-act play.

As noted before, this is nothing new.

I would be happy with just adding "Intentional" in front of "Interference" if its incidental than the runner should never be called out.

 

[Umpire]

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

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.

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.

In case there is any doubt, I am intentionally posting this in 5...4...3...2...1...

 

[3afan]

I've been calling 20+ yrs, not sure I can recall an INT that I can say for sure was intentional

 

[Umpire]

I've been calling 20+ yrs, not sure I can recall an INT that I can say for sure was intentional

WOW! I'm moving to where you live then.

Maybe there is an issue with how intent is viewed. A person acts intentionally with respect to conduct or to a result when her conscious objective is to engage in such conduct or to cause such result.

Applying game experience, the facts and circumstances of a play and common sense should cause an umpire to be able to reasonably conclude whether an act was intentional. No one is asking for "for sure." Let's not be ridiculous and give athletes greater protection than criminal defendants when it comes to their conduct.

 

[3afan]

WOW! I'm moving to where you live then.

Maybe there is an issue with how intent is viewed. A person acts intentionally with respect to conduct or to a result when her conscious objective is to engage in such conduct or to cause such result.

Applying game experience, the facts and circumstances of a play and common sense should cause an umpire to be able to reasonably conclude whether an act was intentional. No one is asking for "for sure." Let's not be ridiculous and give athletes greater protection than criminal defendants when it comes to their conduct.

don't over-analyze ... INT is still INT whether or not true intent can or cannot be determined, or judged

 

[Rocketech1]

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)?

 

[Umpire]

don't over-analyze ... INT is still INT whether or not true intent can or cannot be determined, or judged

I think you've completely missed my point. I didn't over analyze it. I broke it down. And you're wrong in saying that "INT is still INT whether or not true intent can or cannot be determined." You're wrong because the old interpretation is still applied in most codes. Additionally, intent is still required for some forms of interference, so I wouldn't go around saying that intent doesn't matter.