Why do I continually see umpires call runners out for interference for just running to the next base??? Just happened today in tournament. Runners on 1st and 2nd. Ground ball to SS. Runner on second runs to third in front of SS because SS is playing deep. Does not make contact, just running to 3rd base. Home plate umpire calls interference??? Am I missing something here. Little help with the rule please?
Interference???
- Thread starter Goetz
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
Of course, this is HTBT, but short of the runner doing something other just running the bases, this should not be INT.
Umpires who call this often do so as reaction to coaches' wishes. Not at that moment, but over time. The common, "the runner blocked her vision" argument often comes up, but unless that was evident in the movement of the runner, it is nothing. IMO, this is OOO (over-officious officiating). The umpire thinks s/he is making it "fair", but that doesn't work since the "other" team just had a runner removed from the basepath for doing nothing more than what she is supposed to do.
Other than stopping in front of a fielder to intentionally block their vision is there any other circumstance that would constitute an interfernce call? Other than contact with a fielder, of course.
I am a baseball coach and you will see runners purposely delay and or jump over a ball to avoid being hit by it and I have never seen interference called on anything other than contact between runner and fielder.
But in softball I have seen this called numerous times where runner was just running to next base, it usually occurs on a ground ball to SS when runner on 2nd is going to 3rd.
I am a baseball coach and you will see runners purposely delay and or jump over a ball to avoid being hit by it and I have never seen interference called on anything other than contact between runner and fielder.
But in softball I have seen this called numerous times where runner was just running to next base, it usually occurs on a ground ball to SS when runner on 2nd is going to 3rd.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
Anything that would interfere that isn't advancing to the base. Even a hesitation to time the pass in front of the runner means the runner is no longer trying to advance, but to interfere which can draw a call. Best thing for a fielder to do is charge the ball and force the runner to stop or go around.
I dont know why these guys feel the need to call that when the runner is just advancing to the next base. Its like they think the runner has to stop and wait for the fielder to field the ball because if they run in front of the fielder its interference. Actually I just read in rule book where it states Runner is NOT out if they run outside the baseline in Front or Behind a fielder attempting to field a ball. So obviously its ok to run in front of a fielder to avoid them.
- May 30, 2011
- 143
- 0
Remember INT is "The act of an offensive player or team member...that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary." That's the definition right out of the rule book.
Having said that, I agree if the runner simply crosses in front of the fielder but allows the fielder the space needed to field the ball it is not INT, as defined above. But the runner does not have to run into the fielder, nor is there any onus on the fielder to force the runner to collide with her.
Example: R1 on 2B, grounder to F6. F6 charges to the ball but pulls up short to avoid an obvious collision with R1 who is running hard right at the spot where it appear F6 will meet the ball. The runner never slows down but does not alter her path to avoid the area where F6 is attempting make the initial play on a batted ball. That action may be judged as the action which "hindered or impeded" the fielder. INT, immediate dead ball, runner out, return runners to base occupied at time of pitch, award batter-runner 1B scored as a fielders choice. If there was an obvious double play the runner closest to home may also be declared out.
Another no-contact example I had this season is a runner who stops to avoid contact but does so right in the fielders space and the fielder muffs the play. Again it's judgement and HTBT but this can very well be considered INT.. and act which confused or hindered the fielder.
No contact does not automatically mean no INT.
Having said that, I agree if the runner simply crosses in front of the fielder but allows the fielder the space needed to field the ball it is not INT, as defined above. But the runner does not have to run into the fielder, nor is there any onus on the fielder to force the runner to collide with her.
Example: R1 on 2B, grounder to F6. F6 charges to the ball but pulls up short to avoid an obvious collision with R1 who is running hard right at the spot where it appear F6 will meet the ball. The runner never slows down but does not alter her path to avoid the area where F6 is attempting make the initial play on a batted ball. That action may be judged as the action which "hindered or impeded" the fielder. INT, immediate dead ball, runner out, return runners to base occupied at time of pitch, award batter-runner 1B scored as a fielders choice. If there was an obvious double play the runner closest to home may also be declared out.
Another no-contact example I had this season is a runner who stops to avoid contact but does so right in the fielders space and the fielder muffs the play. Again it's judgement and HTBT but this can very well be considered INT.. and act which confused or hindered the fielder.
No contact does not automatically mean no INT.
Cannonball
Ex "Expert"
- Feb 25, 2009
- 4,881
- 113
MTR and Umpireearnie, I understand both of your points. However, as a coach, it is hard to know what to teach players to do. For example, I have told runners to allow the ball to clear the basepath and then had the runner called out for distracting the fielder. I have had runners jump the ball on their way continuing momentum to the next base and have had interference called for jumping the ball. It is nearly impossible in some of these cases to keep a normal stride and progression without contacting the ball. So, for players and coaches this is a tough situation. I do understand that "intent" is impossible for you guys to know as in attempting to confuse the fielder. Heck, "intent" isn't even in the definition of interference. I hope this makes sense.
- May 30, 2011
- 143
- 0
Teach them to give the fielder making the initial play on the ball a wide berth. That will negate INT with any decent umpire as long as the runner is simply passing well in front of the fielder and no contact is made with the ball. Remeber the onus is on the runner to avoid the fielder, not the other way around when the fielder is making thee initial play on a batted ball.
But better yet, go behind the runner if there is any option to do so. Pretty hard to hinder F6 if you are running behind her!
Possibly hold up and let F6 make the play at 1B if the runner on 2B is not forced. Then take off for 3B once the throw is away. Something other than running close enough to the fielder where the action might be deemed to have hindered the fielder.
Are you still going to get some bad INT calls? Of course! Umpires vary in ability and game knowledge just as players do.
But better yet, go behind the runner if there is any option to do so. Pretty hard to hinder F6 if you are running behind her!
Possibly hold up and let F6 make the play at 1B if the runner on 2B is not forced. Then take off for 3B once the throw is away. Something other than running close enough to the fielder where the action might be deemed to have hindered the fielder.
Are you still going to get some bad INT calls? Of course! Umpires vary in ability and game knowledge just as players do.
