I was watching my DD's college softball game. It was 2-2 bottom of the 7th with a runner on 3rd 1 out. We were in the field. A pop fly in foul territory by 1st. The first baseman makes a diving catch. The batter was running up the 1st base line and stops and turns to go back to the dugout at the same time the runner on 3rd tags up and heads home. The 1st baseman throws to home but hits the batter, who was still walking back to the dugout. The ump ruled interference by the batter so we ended up with a double play to end the inning. We went on to win 4-2 in 9 innings. I was happy with the call but thought it should have gone the other way. Can anyone explain why it didn't?
Some thoughts on this ruling
- Thread starter luvsb
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
If you were happy with the call, what other way could the ruling have possibly gone? The batter was already out, she cant be out again.
Without seeing the play, knowing where the batter was in relation to the throw, etc etc etc its impossible to give an opinion on if the call was correct or not. After the 2 interference calls in the WCWS playoffs last year, it appears NCAA has decided any throw hitting a retired runner is now interference so that may have something to do with it.
Without seeing the play, knowing where the batter was in relation to the throw, etc etc etc its impossible to give an opinion on if the call was correct or not. After the 2 interference calls in the WCWS playoffs last year, it appears NCAA has decided any throw hitting a retired runner is now interference so that may have something to do with it.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
I think the coaches are already training the "target practice" methodology of getting that free out.
Simple, in the umpire's judgement, he felt that the batter who had been declared out, interfered with F3's throw to F2. Runner closest to home is called out per 11.22.3.
I'm sure if he hadn't called INF on the retired batter, someone associated with the other team would be asking the question as to why it wasn't INF.
As Comp indicated, impossible to form an opinion on the call without video.
Curious, as the runner on third represented the winning run, did the coach of the home team come out and question/argue the call?
Yes, the other coach did come out and argue the call. The batter was in direct line of the throw from the first basemen. yes I was happy with the out come and would not want it any other way. I just thought that a thrown ball hitting another player was not INF. Like for instance a catcher fielding a bunt and throws to first but hits the runner. I was just curious if it was the correct call and it seems it was. Thank you for all of your responses.
Runners have the right to run the baselines in an attempt to be safe. But the runner in your example had been called out. At that point, she needs to be out of the way.
I assume she has the right to continue her momentum briefly after the ball was caught, but you said she'd stopped and turned. She doesn't have the right to stop and turn in the way of a fielder's throw, IMO.
Last edited:
Problem I see is this player was already retired
That makes it easier. No retired runner shall interfere. Result - Dead Ball and the runner closest to home is out.
So you want them to disappear how?
- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
If the BR was still advancing toward 1B, I would believe that to be a viable defense against an INT call. However, in THIS CASE, the retired BR stopped her attempt to advance and did not take care to avoid interfering with the defense's ability to make a play on a runner.
The retired runner has a responsibility to be aware of her surroundings and the ongoing play and to avoid interfering.
Similar threads
