Umpire judgement as to whether F5 had an opportunity to make a play on the ball.
"Down the 3BL" and "ran into R leading" sounds like it may have been a stretch for F5 to make a play sans contact. but HTBT
Interference call today
- Thread starter CoogansBluff
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Umpire judgement as to whether F5 had an opportunity to make a play on the ball.
"Down the 3BL" and "ran into R leading" sounds like it may have been a stretch for F5 to make a play sans contact. but HTBT
And who has a reasonable chance of making a play.
mike s
Pitcher's Dad
I love the Interference/Obstruction debates, always learn something. Recently had an Interference call that I thought was Obstruction. Runner on 1st, grounder to F4, she miss plays the ball and it ends up on her left several feet away. R1 goes from 1st to 2nd and "interfered" with F4's 2nd attempt to get to the ball. R1 is out due to Runner Interference. Was this the right call?
Last edited:
On a deflected batted ball, INT occurs only when the R intentionally hinders the fielder. This is one of the few remaining usages of "intent" when it comes to INT.
Please provide a realistic example where INT shouldn't be called on a fair batted ball solely because the fielder didn't have a play.
I realize the definition of interference requires the defense have an opportunity to make an out, but thought it was trumped by the right of the defense to field a fair batted ball. Maybe it's a moot point because a play is always available...
There are a few, but since you only asked for one, here is a very common situation.
R1 on 2B. Batter hits a fly ball beyond 2B in short RCF. F6 wants to make the effort, but collides with R1 who is about 10 ft off 2B on way to 3B. Umpire judgement, did F6 have a reasonable chance of making the catch? If not, then not only is this not INT on R1 it is OBS on F6.
Bonus situation:
Batter bunts up 1B line F1, F2, F3 are all charging for the ball. BR and F3 collide. F3 is called for OBS. DC argues that F3 was trying to make a play.
Only one player can be protecticed for INT, the one that had the best chance of making the play.
In this case, F1 had the best chance of making the play.
Make sense?
Was F6 the one that could field the ball first? If not, I'm looking for a case where the fielder is the primary fielder going after the ball, has no chance to catch it on the fly nor to retire anyone once they get it. Are they protected going after the fair batted ball or do they need to stay out of the way of runners because they don't have a play?
For example, R1 on 1B, no outs and push bunt goes between F1/F3 because neither one could reach it. F4 was initially going to cover 1B and changes course because she is primary fielder to get ball. If F4 won't have a play when they get to the ball, does she need to stay out of R1's way or does she have the right-of-way?
Bonus situation:
F5 charges a slow roller to the 5-6 hole and whiffs on it. F6 was also going after the ball and a runner collides with her after F5 whiffed. Is it OBS because F5 was the primary fielder or would it be INT if F6 had a play?
There are a bunch of umpires (some very experienced) that still struggle with this.
3 times in the last 3 weeks we've had (different) umpires hold out their fist at 90 degrees on interference and not kill the play. I remain calm and the ultimately they sort it all out correctly. This is both ASA 16u travel(X2) and a different 16u rec team (X1).
Tonight in a rec game (but an umpire that's been around), I have a runner stealing second. The opposing team has their infielders play at the 10u level (in front of baseline) because, well, they as well as we, play and hit like it's 10u. On the steal the second baseman retreats into the baseline and runs towards second (while SS covers). My runner after almost stopping to avoid the second baseman has to run 4' towards R field to avoid her. She's out by 6'. Umpire rules her out.
I ask about obstruction and given he is umpiring solo I don't expect anything. But his response torqued me.
His response was, "there was no contact".
Me, "Huh? I'm asking about obstruction, not interference."
Him, "There was no contact."
Me, "Noting in the rulebook about contact."
Him, "Then you can do my job, I don't care about no rulebook."
I drop it at that point.
Next batter gets to first, and no steal, second baseman does the same thing. I hear him say, "If there's contact I'll give it to you."
After the inning their coach (who I know well - college player female - a good aggressive player), says, I don't understand what happened. I explain it and she states, "We've told her she can't do that, you have to have your runner knock her down, then she'll get it.".
So I have an umpire and an opposing coach that want my runner to plow the fielder.
LOL - interference and obstruction is rarely understood and most refuse to read the rulebook to try and understand it.
3 times in the last 3 weeks we've had (different) umpires hold out their fist at 90 degrees on interference and not kill the play. I remain calm and the ultimately they sort it all out correctly. This is both ASA 16u travel(X2) and a different 16u rec team (X1).
Tonight in a rec game (but an umpire that's been around), I have a runner stealing second. The opposing team has their infielders play at the 10u level (in front of baseline) because, well, they as well as we, play and hit like it's 10u. On the steal the second baseman retreats into the baseline and runs towards second (while SS covers). My runner after almost stopping to avoid the second baseman has to run 4' towards R field to avoid her. She's out by 6'. Umpire rules her out.
I ask about obstruction and given he is umpiring solo I don't expect anything. But his response torqued me.
His response was, "there was no contact".
Me, "Huh? I'm asking about obstruction, not interference."
Him, "There was no contact."
Me, "Noting in the rulebook about contact."
Him, "Then you can do my job, I don't care about no rulebook."
I drop it at that point.
Next batter gets to first, and no steal, second baseman does the same thing. I hear him say, "If there's contact I'll give it to you."
After the inning their coach (who I know well - college player female - a good aggressive player), says, I don't understand what happened. I explain it and she states, "We've told her she can't do that, you have to have your runner knock her down, then she'll get it.".
So I have an umpire and an opposing coach that want my runner to plow the fielder.
LOL - interference and obstruction is rarely understood and most refuse to read the rulebook to try and understand it.
Last edited:
In the scenario I proposed, F4 was closer to the ball (edge of grass RCF), but was not able to get to it either. F6 was further away, AND collided with R1 and in no way could be protected from INT.
Sometimes in the course of the game, by doing what players are "supposed to do", can trigger a rules violation. By all means F6 should go all out to try to catch the uncatchable ball. But that does not mean she is absolved of a rules violation.
There is no guarantee for any/all defenders to be protected for INT, this would enable chaos by all 9 players going after the ball. But there is a maximum of one player.
Incomplete question. But what I think you are asking is if F4 changes direction to field the batted ball, and is hindered by R1, then yes, R1 would be guilty of INT.
You’re getting your money’s worth tonight…
There is not enough detail in your question to give a definitive answer, but this could be INT on R if it was judged that F6 had a chance of retiring a runner sans the collision. Assuming we have an untouched batted ball in the process of being fielded by F6.
Last edited:
