However, without contact typically a NO-CALL is made. Seen it more times than I care to count, in fact this weekend!!!
"Run her over!"
- Thread starter Way2Be
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
However, without contact typically a NO-CALL is made. Seen it more times than I care to count, in fact this weekend!!!
and this is exactly why girls fielding the ball should not alter their path to the ball to avoid contact and why girls running the base path should not run around girls standing in the base path. I too saw a play this weekend girl had an easy play on the ball but hesitated because the runner was in her way and then she could not recover and make the play...happens all the time.
All that being said it is just natural instinct to not want to make contact with another player so I don't know how much coaching can stop what happens in the heat of the moment and it is not something you can practice since you definitely don't want your players running into each other on the practice field.
Then you need to start questioning umpires in these situations and if you get a response that obstruction or interference was not called because there was no contact, immediately protest and get the UIC involved. That becomes a rule interpretation issue and not a judgement call. Sometimes, a protest will force an umpire to get in the book and actually learn the rule.
The coach did question the call, was told "in my judgement the runner didn't interfere with the fielder". It was pretty obivous from my viewpoint, and he would not ask for any help saying it was his call. Now the SS did make the mistake for holding up and not attempting to continue towards the ball, and the runner did a spin move to avoid contact. But bottom line is no-contact, no-call despite what the rules say
and no matter what kind of protest you lodge this can always be their fallback position which is why protesting is usually a waste of time, I would just make sure at the end of the on the field questioning of the call they understand contact is not required then make it a point to find the UIC so maybe he will make it a point of emphasis at the next umpire meeting.
Last edited:
I saw a play a few weeks back where the bases were loaded and one out. The second baseman was playing deep behind the baseline. (No clue why she wasn't playing up to get the force at home.) A ground ball was hit to 2nd and the runner at first stepped over the ball without touching it on her way to 2nd. The 2nd baseman fielded it cleanly and threw to first for the out. She was too deep for the play at home. The umpire throws up his hands to call a dead ball and calls the runner out for interference. He then puts the runners back on 3rd and 2nd taking a run off the board. He calls the batter safe at 1st. The next batter grounds out for the final out and the run coming off forced the game into IT. Now this is a case where no contact was made and interference was called. It appeared to me that the runner didn't deny the fielder access to the ball but the umpire might have saw it differently. The coach wasn't happy and the call certainly impacted the game.
If the umpire says this, the coach should respond with; Thank you, and walk off of the field. A judgement call, even though you don't agree with it, is not arguable or protestable.
But this is not what you originally posted....you implied that an umpire said that there was no interference because there was no contact. That is a misinterpretation of the rule and a protestable situation.
If the umpire judged that the runner interferred, this is absolutely the correct call and administration.
Getting me confused with someone else. I didn't have the OP. All I said is that it is typical that with no-contact, a no-call is made, it doesn't matter what the rules say.
Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
OK, OK, OK - understand that this is a judgement call made at the umpire's discretion. So if the umpire judged that the runner interferred then he absolutely made and administered the correct call. Of course this is the standard fallback position, but it doesn't answer the real question - does jumping over the ball constitute interference?
In the case described by TNTCoach, if the fielder fielded the ball cleanly as indicated and made the play at first, the runner's action's obviously did not hinder the fielder's ability to field the ball and make a play....So where is there interference??? Does the runner's intent make a difference? Is there a difference if a) in the course of proceeding directly to the next base the runner HAS to jump over the ball purely to avoid being hit or b) if the runner times their advance so that they MAY jump over the ball? And does it make a difference whether the fielder fields it clean or boots it?
Last edited:
