Interference on thrown ball from the outfield

[MT 73]

Actually I owe you an apology.
I umpire mainly baseball and N.F.H.S. softball where the word "intent" is clearly stated.
BUT--I checked the A.S.A. rule book last night and was shocked to see that the word intent is not there.
So--if a runner is sliding into a base and is hit from behind by a throw--or if she is hit in the back by a thrown ball during a rundown-- is she out??
After all, she did interfere with a throw, albeit unwittingly--but the A.S.A. rulebook does not mention intent.
It just states that a runner is out when interfering with a thrown ball.
IMHO removing intent from the rulebook can open up a whole can of worms.

 

[MTR]

Actually I owe you an apology.
I umpire mainly baseball and N.F.H.S. softball where the word "intent" is clearly stated.
BUT--I checked the A.S.A. rule book last night and was shocked to see that the word intent is not there.
So--if a runner is sliding into a base and is hit from behind by a throw--or if she is hit in the back by a thrown ball during a rundown-- is she out??

Are either of those an "act" of interference?

After all, she did interfere with a throw, albeit unwittingly--but the A.S.A. rulebook does not mention intent.
It just states that a runner is out when interfering with a thrown ball.
IMHO removing intent from the rulebook can open up a whole can of worms.

Read the definition.

 

[MT 73]

Are either of those an "act" of interference?



Read the definition.

I did--it states that a runner is out for interfering with a thrown ball.
Yes--I agree with your interpretation.
It is the exact same as what I recently received from our rules maven.
But--and not to mince words--but where does A.S.A. state the word "act"?

 

[SoCal_Dad]

But--and not to mince words--but where does A.S.A. state the word "act"?

In the definition of Interference.

 

[MTR]

I did--it states that a runner is out for interfering with a thrown ball.
Yes--I agree with your interpretation.
It is the exact same as what I recently received from our rules maven.
But--and not to mince words--but where does A.S.A. state the word "act"?

No, you read the rule. I suggested reading the definition which would be in Rule 1.

When ASA removed the term, or derivative of, intent, it was made clear that they did not expect much to change in the manner in which the rule was applied, but expected the umpires to use their judgment as to whether the player committed an act separate from that involving routine play which would be construed as interfering with the play.

I complete understand you train of thought as I spent most of that week in Colorado Springs speaking in every committee meeting I could make arguing against removing the term, but the powers that be had their mind set. Personally, I had no problem understanding and adjusting my game and method of training the local umpires.

 

[MT 73]

Rule 1, definitions: 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 correct--thank you.

I called Jay Miner this afternoon and he got a good chuckle when I asked him this question.
For those unfamiliar with Jay Miner, he is the chief rules interpreter for all public school softball in New York State ( which uses A.S.A. rules) as well as a frequent writer for Referee magazine.
Jay told me that it was at his urging that ASA removed "intent" from interference, but it was in regard to a scored runner who interferes with a catcher attempting to make another throw.
Jay never imagined that they would remove intentional from thrown ball interference and admitted that it opens up a can of worms--for example, it could lead to fielders intentionally throwing at a runner trying to draw a call.
But now that I see the word "act" in the book ( funny how you can read something for years but never really get it until a discussion such as this comes along.) I can better deal with a coach who questions this.