what is your call on this play

[Momo'sDad]

Same play posted April of last year by same poster.

http://www.discussfastpitch.com/softball-rules-questions/9353-runner-steals-home-whats-call.html

My call is still pretty much the same.

If there's no immediate dead ball call by the ump, then the ball is live and both offense and defense should treat it as such. Since the runner has crossed home plate before being contacted by the ball, she scores. As described in this scenario, the run counts no matter what. If the umpire then calls interference, then the batter-runner is out.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

A runner subject to being called out on appeal has not legally scored until either appealed or the next pitch legal or illegal. A runner who has legally scored cannot be called out. In the OP the runner has met all the requirements to have legally scored and cannot be called out. ...

Thank you for that clarification. Please indulge me with a question about when the runner legally scored.

If the ball was foul, with or w/o touching the runner, the runner wouldn't have legally scored and would have been returned to 3B. Consequently, she couldn't have legally scored until the ball became fair by contacting her. Seems like a chicken-or-egg situation regarding the applicability of rule 8-7K between her being a runner or an offensive player that has legally scored. How is that resolved?

 

[Greenmonsters]

Thank you for that clarification. Please indulge me with a question about when the runner legally scored.

If the ball was foul, with or w/o touching the runner, the runner wouldn't have legally scored and would have been returned to 3B. Consequently, she couldn't have legally scored until the ball became fair by contacting her. Seems like a chicken-or-egg situation regarding the applicability of rule 8-7K between her being a runner or an offensive player that has legally scored. How is that resolved?

Excellent point. Also, does a "play" have to involve action potentially leading to an out? Isn't a player choosing to let a ball roll foul before touching it a "play"? So if the scored runner has touched the backspinning ball in fair territory before it comes to rest haven't they interfered with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play?

 

[Momo'sDad]

Thank you for that clarification. Please indulge me with a question about when the runner legally scored.

If the ball was foul, with or w/o touching the runner, the runner wouldn't have legally scored and would have been returned to 3B. Consequently, she couldn't have legally scored until the ball became fair by contacting her. Seems like a chicken-or-egg situation regarding the applicability of rule 8-7K between her being a runner or an offensive player that has legally scored. How is that resolved?

I understand where your thought about the result is coming from, but the contact with the scoring runner is NOT what defined the ball as fair. Here are some of the possibilities:

1) As described, if the runner is contacted by the ball prior to touching home plate, I'm calling an immediate dead ball and the runner is out.

2) As you've noted, if the ball rolls foul after she's scored, then as soon as the ball is ruled foul, the scoring runner is returned to 3B.

3) If the scoring runner crosses home plate and contacts the ball in fair territory on her way back to the dugout, then it's most likely interference and the runner nearest home would be out (assuming batter-runner, for the sake of argument). The run still counts, even if her contact with the fair ball - say, to prevent it from rolling foul - appeared to be deliberate, which would be an easy INT call.

Is my interpretation in #3 correct, Comp? MTR?

 

[Comp]

Letting a ball roll foul does not meet the definition of a play.

Play: An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player.

Letting a ball roll foul is not an attempt to retire a player. In order to rule interference, being hit by the ball in fair territory after scoring would have to actually prevent the defense from making an out.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Letting a ball roll foul does not meet the definition of a play. Play: An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player.

Letting a ball roll foul is not an attempt to retire a player. In order to rule interference, being hit by the ball in fair territory after scoring would have to actually prevent the defense from making an out.

If the catcher ultimately picks up the ball and throws the ball to first (even if the batter/runner is standing on the bag), is that not a "play", albeit an ill-advised attempt at trying to retire a batter/runner or runner??? Whether there exists a legitimate chance to get an out or not is irrelevant, no? And per NCAA, an act of interference? (1.72 Interference
Equipment or the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire or spectator that denies
the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or
unintentional and the ball must have been playable.)

 

[SoCal_Dad]

I understand where your thought about the result is coming from, but the contact with the scoring runner is NOT what defined the ball as fair. ...

OP indicates the ball hit the player in fair territory - that made it a fair ball. The only other possibility for it being a fair ball is the offensive player interfered with a defensive player attempting to field the batted ball while it was in fair territory, but that is not indicated by the OP and it would lead to a much different discussion.

 

[Coach JV]

Quote Originally Posted by Comp View Post
Same play posted April of last year by same poster.

Runner Steals home - Whats the call

hmmmmmmmmm

 

[SoCal_Dad]

If the catcher ultimately picks up the ball and throws the ball to first (even if the batter/runner is standing on the bag), is that not a "play", albeit an ill-advised attempt at trying to retire a batter/runner or runner??? Whether there exists a legitimate chance to get an out or not is irrelevant, no? And per NCAA, an act of interference? (1.72 Interference Equipment or the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire or spectator that denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable.)

Interference rules that specify "play" are talking about an opportunity to record an out. They're not punitive for the act itself - they're compensating for the effect of the act (i.e. hindering the defense from making an out). I think of it as softball's version of "No harm, no foul."

The new NCAA rule book is out and they removed 65 definitions from Rule 1 - over half of them! Interference went from 1.72 to 1.32. I believe they did this where the definition is covered in other rule(s).

 

[Momo'sDad]

Letting a ball roll foul does not meet the definition of a play.

Play: An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player.

Letting a ball roll foul is not an attempt to retire a player. In order to rule interference, being hit by the ball in fair territory after scoring would have to actually prevent the defense from making an out.

Yes. After the pitch and before the action stops or a dead ball is called, the ball is live or in play. If the offensive player impedes the defensive player's path to the live ball, that's an easy INT call.

OP indicates the ball hit the player in fair territory - that made it a fair ball. The only other possibility for it being a fair ball is the offensive player interfered with a defensive player attempting to field the batted ball while it was in fair territory, but that is not indicated by the OP and it would lead to a much different discussion.

Yes, the ball batted into fair territory is fair until it's foul. If the scoring runner contacts home plate and then contacts the previously untouched ball in fair territory and interferes with the defense's ability to make a play, the run still counts and the INT call means that the runner nearest home is out.

With all the action happening in fair territory here, I thought the call was fairly straightforward.