Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Register Log in

Runner hits fielder as she catches ball

martianr

Softball DAD
Jan 26, 2014
176
18
Whiting, Iowa
Batter pops up to the 1st baseman. She catches it with plenty time for the runner to avoid contact, but doesn't, she bumps into 1st baseman. Obviously she is out, but there also was a runner at 2nd. The 1st baseman then tried to make a throw over to 2nd and almost gets the out. Our coach argues that the runner interfered with her ability to make a strong throw over to second and should be out.

Just to add, the same pop up out happened earlier and the runner avoided the fielder. Just wondering if their coach made a comment to bump the fielder and hope for some kind of throwing error.

So, should the runner at 2nd been out also?

My personal opinion is if runner is allowed to do that what would prevent someone form "tackling" the fielder to advance a runner. Tackling is a little extreme but I thing you get my point.
 
Jul 14, 2010
710
18
NJ/PA
As soon as runner interference is called, the play is dead. Runners return to previous bases. There is no possibility for additional outs on the play.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,435
48
Batter pops up to the 1st baseman. She catches it with plenty time for the runner to avoid contact, but doesn't, she bumps into 1st baseman. Obviously she is out, but there also was a runner at 2nd. The 1st baseman then tried to make a throw over to 2nd and almost gets the out. Our coach argues that the runner interfered with her ability to make a strong throw over to second and should be out.

Just to add, the same pop up out happened earlier and the runner avoided the fielder. Just wondering if their coach made a comment to bump the fielder and hope for some kind of throwing error.

So, should the runner at 2nd been out also?

My personal opinion is if runner is allowed to do that what would prevent someone form "tackling" the fielder to advance a runner. Tackling is a little extreme but I thing you get my point.

There is no INT of the contact between R2 and F3. The ball was already caught, so that out isn't so obvious. Sort of curious why F3 just wouldn't tag R2 for the out or tag 1B on the appeal.

AFA R1, the umpire would have to judge that the defense would have actually gotten the out at 2B without the contact. If it was judged INT, R2 would have been ruled out and R1 returned to 2B.

This is definitely HTBT
 
Sep 14, 2011
768
18
Glendale, AZ
The way I read this is that the play started with R1 on second base.

BR pops up to F3, fly ball is caught for the out, then the now retired BR bumps F3, possibly hindering F3's attempt to play on R1 who took a short lead on the popup and may be a bit slow getting back to second base to tag up.

If that is an accurate description of the play, and the contact between the Retired BR and F3 was judged to be interference, you would have interference by a retired runner, the ball is dead and the runner closest to home (R1 in this case) would also be out.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,435
48
The way I read this is that the play started with R1 on second base.

BR pops up to F3, fly ball is caught for the out, then the now retired BR bumps F3, possibly hindering F3's attempt to play on R1 who took a short lead on the popup and may be a bit slow getting back to second base to tag up.

If that is an accurate description of the play, and the contact between the Retired BR and F3 was judged to be interference, you would have interference by a retired runner, the ball is dead and the runner closest to home (R1 in this case) would also be out.
I read it with what was given. OP states "runner", not BR or retired BR. Obviouly, we need clarification
 
Top