I think an umpire messed up a call, but I'm not sure, so checking in!

[SiB57]

Not really a big deal, and if I'm right and the call was missed, it actually went in our favor, but I'm just curious so I understand the rules better.

Lead off batter for the inning. Pops up in between home and 1st, but slightly foul (2-3 feet foul or so.) Runner books down baseline, and pitcher books over to try to catch the ball and they collide (and collide hard, both were on the ground for a few breaths.) Ball drops foul.

Nothing was called. Umpire said because the ball was foul there was no obstruction or interference. Foul ball, pitch again.

I'm thinking that was wrong, though? I would've though it should still be interference on the runner. I'm not positive the pitcher could've gotten to the ball, but I'm not positive that she couldn't get there either (and does that matter?) But foul ball or not, there was a chance the pitcher could've made the play and because of the collision, there was zero chance she could get there.

So that's my question, was the umpire correct in a no call because the ball was foul (or maybe in her judgement the pitcher couldn't get to the ball anyway if that matters?) or should it have been interference?

Thanks!

 

[The Man In Blue]

What rule set? Depending on the rule set, intent may matter as to whether you can get an interference call or not. (I don't have my books in front of me, so we may find that all sets disregard intent when we look it up.)

The ball being (potentially) foul should have had no baring on the play (other than that would rule out obstruction in this case since the runner had no right to advance). If the umpire would have said said he didn't think she had a play (in his judgment) then that's all there would have been.

Not everything is interference/obstruction; sometimes you just have "a tangle" (or one of many other colorful phrases).

Wait ... how is there a runner if the batter is leading off the inning?

 

[SiB57]

It was a USSSA tournament 12U C.

It was the Batter/runner that collided with the pitcher between home and 1st base, about 1/2 way up the line.

As far as intent, there was no intent on either girl to hit the other. Batter was running hard to first not even looking at the ball (as we teach them!) and pitcher was running hard to try to catch the ball and missed where the batter/runner was. They just collided.

Thanks for the follow up questions! I know that there are so many things that have to be right to get the call right and it's most times impossible to know.

But my main question that you answered is that the foul ball really has to baring on the play. Umpire could've had a no call because she thought the pitcher couldn't get to the ball, or any other reason, but just because the ball was foul doesn't mean the play couldn't have another call on it. Thanks!

 

[eddieq]

Like TMIB said, it could be interference depending on the sanction. But in general, if the batter-runner prevents the opportunity to make a play, you have a dead ball out on interference. If there was no opportunity (judgement of the umpire on this one), play on and take an advil when you return to the dugout.

 

[newsoftballdad]

What rule set? Depending on the rule set, intent may matter as to whether you can get an interference call or not. (I don't have my books in front of me, so we may find that all sets disregard intent when we look it up.)

The ball being (potentially) foul should have had no baring on the play (other than that would rule out obstruction in this case since the runner had no right to advance). If the umpire would have said said he didn't think she had a play (in his judgment) then that's all there would have been.

Not everything is interference/obstruction; sometimes you just have "a tangle" (or one of many other colorful phrases).

Wait ... how is there a runner if the batter is leading off the inning?

"Train wreck"

 

[The Man In Blue]

USSSA does not require intent, so you potentially could (should) have an interference call.

USSSA 8.18.F -- (Any runner is out when the runner) Hinders a fielder's initial play on a batted ball.

That's how we like our rules ... short, sweet, and to the point. EZ squeezy.

 

[EdLovrich]

Another 'had to be there'. The ball being over foul territory has to bearing on the ruling. However, the umpire may have simply chosen his/her words wrong and intended to say the pitcher had no chance to make a play because the ball was so far foul.

12U C, did the pitcher have a reasonable chance to field the ball?

 

[SiB57]

12U C, did the pitcher have a reasonable chance to field the ball?

I don’t think she would’ve gotten there, but it would’ve been close.

 

[inumpire]

It was a USSSA tournament 12U C.

It was the Batter/runner that collided with the pitcher between home and 1st base, about 1/2 way up the line.

As far as intent, there was no intent on either girl to hit the other. Batter was running hard to first not even looking at the ball (as we teach them!) and pitcher was running hard to try to catch the ball and missed where the batter/runner was. They just collided.

Thanks for the follow up questions! I know that there are so many things that have to be right to get the call right and it's most times impossible to know.

But my main question that you answered is that the foul ball really has to baring on the play. Umpire could've had a no call because she thought the pitcher couldn't get to the ball, or any other reason, but just because the ball was foul doesn't mean the play couldn't have another call on it. Thanks!

Batter runner is out, any rule set.