I saw there was a previous thread on this but this situation was a bit different so I thought I would ask. There was a play at the plate. Ball came in low and catcher missed. The on-deck batter, from the 3rd base side circle, had moved closer to the play to guide the runner. The ball ends up hitting the bat she was holding, and flies over the head of the pitcher backing up, allowing another run to score and runner on first to advance. I suspect that the runner on 3rd would not have scored without the ball hitting the bat, but just a guess. Is this interference?
Throw hits on deck batter
- Thread starter newnin
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
- Mar 1, 2013
- 404
- 43
I’d have a blocked ball as described. Ball is dead and everyone returns. If it prevented an out opportunity then that runner would be out.
- May 29, 2015
- 3,813
- 113
It will depend on your code ...
USA ... The on-deck batter is expressly allowed to leave the on-deck circle to guide a runner at the plate. They may not interfere though. The penalty is the runner closest to home at the time of interference is out. Any other runners go back.
USSSA and NFHS ... almost identical to USA, EXCEPT ... if no play was obvious, the ball is dead and runners return (nobody is called out).
USA ... The on-deck batter is expressly allowed to leave the on-deck circle to guide a runner at the plate. They may not interfere though. The penalty is the runner closest to home at the time of interference is out. Any other runners go back.
USSSA and NFHS ... almost identical to USA, EXCEPT ... if no play was obvious, the ball is dead and runners return (nobody is called out).
At the time of the interference, the first runner had not quite touched home. But the interference would have had no impact on that outcome. It just allowed a second run to cross.
The other interesting part was that there was no chance the plate umpire actually saw this occur. I believe he was watching the first run cross the plate and the catcher interaction with the runner. There was a field umpire, but I imagine they would have been watching the second runner advancing from 1st to third.
I saw the defensive coach appeal, but didn't get anywhere with it.
The other interesting part was that there was no chance the plate umpire actually saw this occur. I believe he was watching the first run cross the plate and the catcher interaction with the runner. There was a field umpire, but I imagine they would have been watching the second runner advancing from 1st to third.
I saw the defensive coach appeal, but didn't get anywhere with it.
- May 29, 2015
- 3,813
- 113
Even in a two umpire system, we can't see everything. Just a fact. Like you said, plate umpire is watching the play at the plate and has not turned his attention to the overthrow yet. Base umpire might be stealing a glance at where the ball is, but is watching the runners to make sure they are touching the bases.
Here's the interesting wrinkle to me: You added that the first runner had not yet touched home ... under USA rules THAT would be the runner called out and the other two would go back. No runs scored. OR you can make an argument that it didn't interfere with that play and allow the runner to score, but it interfered with the next play so that next runner is the one called out.
What is funky about this is that it is essentially the same thing that happened at second base in the WCWS, but there it is considered nothing and the offense benefits.
Here's the interesting wrinkle to me: You added that the first runner had not yet touched home ... under USA rules THAT would be the runner called out and the other two would go back. No runs scored. OR you can make an argument that it didn't interfere with that play and allow the runner to score, but it interfered with the next play so that next runner is the one called out.
What is funky about this is that it is essentially the same thing that happened at second base in the WCWS, but there it is considered nothing and the offense benefits.
- Mar 1, 2013
- 404
- 43
@The Man In Blue that’s why I had said I’d have a blocked ball. If the on deck batter was hit but didn’t interfere with the out opportunity call it dead and send everyone back. If USA wanted interference called whenever a ODB was hit by a thrown ball I think they’d explicitly say that.
So in that scenario, send everyone back including the one that had not yet scored when the ball became blocked.
So in that scenario, send everyone back including the one that had not yet scored when the ball became blocked.
- May 29, 2015
- 3,813
- 113
They do say that. I think it was in the supplement section (I’ll have to double check) they say that somebody has to be called out.
- Mar 1, 2013
- 404
- 43
Rules supplement on interference uses similar language “may be charged with interference@ and such. Rule Supplement 33 part D
D. On-deck batters may be charged with interference if they interfere with a throw, a possible tag on a runner, or a fielder’s opportunity to make an out on a fly ball.
July 2017 plays and clarifications has a play where the ODB picks up a loose ball. The clarification just says that the ball is dead and, if the umpire judges that this interfered, they would rule the runner out. Otherwise everyone goes back and nobody is out.
D. On-deck batters may be charged with interference if they interfere with a throw, a possible tag on a runner, or a fielder’s opportunity to make an out on a fly ball.
July 2017 plays and clarifications has a play where the ODB picks up a loose ball. The clarification just says that the ball is dead and, if the umpire judges that this interfered, they would rule the runner out. Otherwise everyone goes back and nobody is out.
