Runners under a "decoy" rule

[GI Tom]

If I judge the contact with the runner prevented her from making the play, that's right. What I tried to say earlier is that had INT been ruled in that situation (F6 not being prevented from making the play) it would have been erroneous by rule. Obviously, either call greatly affects the game.

As an official, what I would say is that it is or it isn't INT. You were initially arguing that it should be a DDB of which I completely disagree. If you see INT, it should be called right then and everything killed. The ability (or inability) of a Fielder to do something good or bad after it is irrelevant.

The rule as stated in every ruleset I've ever seen has always been predicated upon whether or not the fielder is impeded from making the play or prevented from making the play or attempting to make the play or some flavor thereof. Does contact determine INT? No, it does not, that's even stated in the NCAA rules with the last portion about "..and being prevented from doing so."

You can have INT with or without contact except in one ruleset as far as I know (IFA/VTD). Conversely, you can have just softball being played with or without contact.

So, I guess I'm attempting to understand when INT occurs, what is your point of making it a DDB? I cannot follow the logic.

 

[bhblue]

So you're basing a possible INT call on the outcome of the play? I cannot support this. Either it was INT or it wasn't.

As a coach, I don't want an umpire making calls based on the game situation. I know you're only human, but the position of the tying run, etc. should have no influence on an umpire's judgment. If you saw INT, you should call it.

What are you talking about? Where did I say the game situation had any influence on the call? Please cite where I gave you that impression.

BTW, I'm basing a possible INT on proper application of the rule. I quoted it in an earlier post. I'll pass your non-support along to the NCAA Rules Committee. You're right, it is either INT or it's not - she was either prevented from making the play or she was not. Pretty simple once you know how the rule reads.

 

[grounder]

as bhblue says... what did he/she interfere with if the play is completed ?

 

[bhblue]

You were initially arguing that it should be a DDB of which I completely disagree.

If you read back, my original comment on INT had to do with inconsistencies within the rules. I asked why, in college, leaving early is a DDB to allow the defense to turn a DP if the opportunity exists while we don't allow the same opportunity when INT occurs. The DDB would be for that purpose but would also allow the umpire to see if INT is the proper call. What we're discussing now is seperate from my DDB issue.

If you see INT, it should be called right then and everything killed. The ability (or inability) of a Fielder to do something good or bad after it is irrelevant.

I agree that when INT occurs, play is dead from that point. But all portions of the rule must be satisfied before you have INT. It's not about anyone's ability, it's about being prevented from making a play.

The rule as stated in every ruleset I've ever seen has always been predicated upon whether or not the fielder is impeded from making the play or prevented from making the play or attempting to make the play or some flavor thereof. Does contact determine INT? No, it does not, that's even stated in the NCAA rules with the last portion about "..and being prevented from doing so."

I'm not sure ASA or NFHS mentions prevented from making a play, just interfering with an attempt to field or throw a ball. That is the difference here. A play under NCAA rules is defined as more than simply fielding or throwing.

So, I guess I'm attempting to understand when INT occurs, what is your point of making it a DDB? I cannot follow the logic.

See above.

 

[GI Tom]

bhblue,

ASA definition of 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." Page 28 of 2013 ASA Umpire Manual.

ASA definiton of Play:
"An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player. A pitch is not considered a play except as it relates to an appeal." Page 29 of 2013 ASA Umpire Manual

NFHS
"Rule 8-2 The Batter-Runner is Out, Article 6: ... The batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to make an inital play, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batters box, makes contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base or (F.P.) interferes with a dropped third strike. If this inteference, in the umpires judgment is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the runner closest to home plate shall be called out. A batter runner being hit with the thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference." Page 61 of 2013 NFHS Softball Rules Book

NFHS Definition of Play Ball, Make a Play, Initial Play:
"Rule 2-45 Section 47 Article 3: Initial Play. A fielder is considered to be making an initial play on a fair batted ball when she: a. Has a reasonable chance to gain control of a ground ball that no other fielder (except the pitcher) has touched. b. Has a reasonable chance to catch the ball in flight or catch the ball in flight after it touches another fielder. c. Fails to gain control of the batted ball and is within a step and a reach (in any direction) of the spot of the intial contact." Page 25 of 2013 NFHS Softball Rules Book

I don't see much of a difference in the concept of any of them.

 

[bhblue]

GI Tom - I don't either - no "was prevented from doing so" requirement. Also, they don't have anything to do with our discussion. What is the point in quoting ASA and NFHS code?

 

[MTR]

So, I guess I'm attempting to understand when INT occurs, what is your point of making it a DDB? I cannot follow the logic.

Sure am glad I was wrong about it being confusing.....

 

[bhblue]

Sure am glad I was wrong about it being confusing.....

I'm pretty sure I explained it thoroughly. Of course I was wrong once. I know college coaches and officials who still butcher DEFO/DP. I know that has been explained thoroughly.

 

[Momo'sDad]

What are you talking about? Where did I say the game situation had any influence on the call? Please cite where I gave you that impression.

BTW, I'm basing a possible INT on proper application of the rule. I quoted it in an earlier post. I'll pass your non-support along to the NCAA Rules Committee. You're right, it is either INT or it's not - she was either prevented from making the play or she was not. Pretty simple once you know how the rule reads.

On 2 prior occasions, you made references to the outcome of the game.

Had the play been killed upon contact between R2 and F6, it would have greatly affected the game as the tying run scored on the play. That wouldn't have happened with an erroneous INT call.

If I judge the contact with the runner prevented her from making the play, that's right. What I tried to say earlier is that had INT been ruled in that situation (F6 not being prevented from making the play) it would have been erroneous by rule. Obviously, either call greatly affects the game.

You also indicated that the result of a play might influence your ruling when you made this statement earlier.

No. The runner contacting F6 would not have interfered with F4's ability to catch a perfectly thrown ball. Now, had F6's throw been wild, the chances are I would judge that the contact threw her off enough to affect her throw and kill it at that point and rule INT.

In a competitive game, it's my expectation that an umpire will call what he or she sees to the best of their ability, with fair application of the rules without any concern about how a specific call might impact the game's outcome. If you see INT, please call it instead of waiting to see what happens with F6's throw attempt.

MTR, am I out of line here?

 

[bhblue]

M's Dad- I mentioned the game situation only to emphasize the importance of the call and getting it right. Perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up since we need to get all the calls right and you totally took it to mean something else.

Now to the INT rule in NCAA. Do you understand the part about the fielder having to be prevented from making the play and how that affects the way we have to call these type of situations? If not, you will continue to want me to call INT when I see it without understanding what you're asking.