"Run her over!"

[TheStrike3yourout]

While I will certainly agree that the bench coach was out of line telling his player to 'run her over', the bottom line is the SS is not allowed to hinder the progress of the baserunner unless she is making a play on the ball. You need to get her to play a step in front or a couple of steps behind the base path. If she plays behind the basepath, you need to make sure your SS knows she has the 'right of way' if she is making a play on the ball.

I agree with this post and the two previous. I even coach my kids down in foul, WAY BACK in FAIR at 3rd base, trying to clip the 3rd baseman for contact when coming back to bag...takes away catcher's throwing lane and forces dead-in-the-sand 3rd basemen to move from barring the bag. Never malicious, just a clip of contact.

 

[CoachKevin]

While I will certainly agree that the bench coach was out of line telling his player to 'run her over', the bottom line is the SS is not allowed to hinder the progress of the baserunner unless she is making a play on the ball. You need to get her to play a step in front or a couple of steps behind the base path. If she plays behind the basepath, you need to make sure your SS knows she has the 'right of way' if she is making a play on the ball.

Why does the SS need to either play in front or behind base path? She can set up where ever she wants to. Bottom line, the umpire should have told the coach this and shut him up. Just because she starts there doesn't mean she is going to end there.

 

[JAD]

Why does the SS need to either play in front or behind base path? She can set up where ever she wants to. Bottom line, the umpire should have told the coach this and shut him up. Just because she starts there doesn't mean she is going to end there.

I have seen some SS that set up in the basepath, then do a '1-2 step up' on release of the pitch, which is fine, but if the SS starts in the base path and hinders the runner going to 3rd, she should be called for interference if the SS is not making a play on the ball. The bottom line is if the SS is making a play on the ball she has the right of way, if she is not making a play on the ball the base runner has the right of way.

 

[starsnuffer]

SS can play wherever she wants to, but unless SS is making a play for the ball, the baserunner has the right of way. I'm not defending the coach, but to play devils advocate, he may have noticed his base-runners slowing down in transit from 2nd to 3rd due to trying to avoid contact with SS or just concerned that they may hit the SS. This would not be acceptable baserunning, so trying to get his baserunners to be more aggressive and run at full speed is certainly well within the bounds of what a coach is supposed to do.

-W

 

[Rocket Eagle]

There are ASA umpires who will not give an OBS/INT call under certain circumstances unless there is contact. The more aggressive teams seem to get the benefit of the doubt a lot.

The coach yelling "run her over" is flat out wrong - and especially at the 12U level.

Re. the rule ... as someone else stated correctly there is no obstruction or interference without contact. With regards to obstruction the letter of the law somewhat contradicts the spirit of the law as the rules say the runner must avoid contact - but there cannot be obstruction without contact. The intent of the rule is to prevent a fielder from obstructing a runner's path unless playing the ball, however the effect of the rule most often is to force a runner to intentionally collide with a fielder to get an obstruction call.

However just as there is no obstruction call if a runner slows down and runs around the SS standing idly in the baseline, there is also not an interference call if the SS playing a ground ball stops suddenly to avoid a collision with a base runner which allows the ball to get thru in the process: no contact, no interference. The problem with changing this rule is that allowing an obstruction or interference call without contact would add very objective judgment calls for umpires, and create an opportunity for runners and fielders alike to try to draw calls by acting.

 

[Ajaywill]

The coach yelling "run her over" is flat out wrong - and especially at the 12U level.

Re. the rule ... as someone else stated correctly there is no obstruction or interference without contact. With regards to obstruction the letter of the law somewhat contradicts the spirit of the law as the rules say the runner must avoid contact - but there cannot be obstruction without contact. The intent of the rule is to prevent a fielder from obstructing a runner's path unless playing the ball, however the effect of the rule most often is to force a runner to intentionally collide with a fielder to get an obstruction call.

However just as there is no obstruction call if a runner slows down and runs around the SS standing idly in the baseline, there is also not an interference call if the SS playing a ground ball stops suddenly to avoid a collision with a base runner which allows the ball to get thru in the process: no contact, no interference. The problem with changing this rule is that allowing an obstruction or interference call without contact would add very objective judgment calls for umpires, and create an opportunity for runners and fielders alike to try to draw calls by acting.

What Rocket Eagle says is somewhat true on the NCAA level, by interpretation, but is completley untrue for ASA and HS play.

 

[Gbucz]

Ajay has made a correct distinction. Since NCAA players already know the rules they know the price they may pay for interfering/obstructing. Also, the NCAA coaches and umps are much better at interpreting judgement calls than in lower level youth leagues. By requiring contact in ASA, HS, NSA and USSSA it helps train the girls to plan their path to the ball or base. You can tell them not to touch a hot stove - some will plan on using their ove-gloves, others will get burned a few times before usig a pot holder. As they get experience they will plan better. If the runner is thinking before the pitch she can predict the best path to take to minimize fielder obstruction. Likewise, the fielder, aware of the situation, can predict her movement toward a ball before the pitch is thrown to minimize runner influence on her fielding.

 

[honus14]

Ajay has made a correct distinction. Since NCAA players already know the rules they know the price they may pay for interfering/obstructing. Also, the NCAA coaches and umps are much better at interpreting judgement calls than in lower level youth leagues. By requiring contact in ASA, HS, NSA and USSSA it helps train the girls to plan their path to the ball or base.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding one or the other of you, but I think that's the exact opposite of what Ajaywill said.

 

[TNTCoach]

There are two different issues that need to be seperated in this thread. While I might understand why a coach might say non malicious contact is acceptable in a situation where a fielder is blocking the baseline, the intent of this coach was not to teach the kids softball. The response was made out of anger and involved a comment that displayed his disregard for the safety of young kids. Everyone is repeating the "run her over" comments made by the coach but leaving out the "it's not our fault if she gets hurt". This comment along with the fact that it was made out of anger tells me a lot about this coach. Not to mention that this was done while the team was up 12-0 and playing a team that they clearly were physically superior than.

There is no place in softball for this kind of thing.

 

[Ajaywill]

My point....

CONTACT is NOT required for either an obstruction or interference call in ASA or HS play.