Runner's Hand Hits Ball During Celebration - Interference?

[Lindsay]

In the bottom of the 6th inning of the Women's College World Series, Oklahoma batter Rylie Boone hit a double to right-center field. As Florida State outfielder Jahni Kerr's throw returned to the infield, first baseman Bethaney Keen prepared to catch it, but before the softball could get to Keen, it hit the outstretched arms of Boone, who stood atop second base celebrating her hit. Umpires no-called the sequence as Boone advanced to third base on the throwing error charged to Kerr.

The question we received is whether or not this should have been declared interference—or at least a dead ball. To answer, we begin as we always do with the relevant rulebook, the NCAA Softball rules.

Rules 11.18 & 12.17 define interference as "an act that denies a defensive player a reasonable opportunity to make a play (field/throw) anywhere on the playing field. The act may be intentional or unintentional, and the ball must have been playable."

Replays indicate the offensive player's act denied a defensive player a reasonable opportunity to receive a throw, but not to make the throw itself (similar to runner's lane interference with the fielder taking the throw, not the one giving it). The act was unintentional insofar as the runner did not appear to intend to interfere and the ball appeared potentially playable to infielder Keen, who lined up to catch the throw before it struck the runner's outstretched hand.

Rule 12.4.6 states a runner is out "when they commit an act of interference" but because the definition is somewhat vague regarding this play, we continued reading to Rule 12.17.2.1.5.2: "The runner may not at any time unnecessarily wave their arms or verbally distract the fielder."

Although it would appear the runner did not verbally distract any fielder, could one deem that the celebratory gesture constituted a violation of the "unnecessarily wave their arms" provision?

What's your call? Choose carefully, because if this is interference, the required penalty is the runner is out. If this is not interference, the runner is safe at third on the throwing error. There is no intermediate option (e.g., the rules do not allow an umpire to call "Time" and place the runner back on second base).

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Is it interference when a throw hits a celebrating runner's outstretched arm?

View the full article

[Velho]

So... because there is provision to kill the play with a "don't do that" and leave R2 on 2B, the crews chose to let it play since the only other choice was calling her out. This continues to feel like we need a rule change (or go rogue like Alan Porter did ignoring Rizzo OBS on that 1B pickoff).

[SeeingEyeDog]

I remember when I went through training and a senior guy said, "If you have to make a ruling and you are not sure what the rulebook allows, select a ruling that is most equitable to the game..." Of course, he wasn't training us to work the NCAA Softball World Series. But, I can now see what horrible advice that was because the "...equitable thing for the game" here would have been to return the runner to 2B. But, as Lindsay states, the rules do not provide for that. If that had been the ruling and the opposing manager protested, the protest would have been upheld. What my trainer should have said was, "You need to learn every GD word of the rulebook and be ready to adjudicate on EVERY possible situation where those rules can be applied because you need to get every call correct..." That all being said, as depicted? I have an out here.

Sports officiating is not about what the official thinks is right or best...it's about what is legal under the rules.

~Dawg

[Mussgrass]

How do you have an out here? In what way did the runner intentionally interfere with the throw?

[agdz59]

9 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

What my trainer should have said was, "You need to learn every GD word of the rulebook and be ready to adjudicate on EVERY possible situation where those rules can be applied because you need to get every call correct..." That all being said, as depicted? I have an out here.

Sports officiating is not about what the official thinks is right or best...it's about what is legal under the rules.

~Dawg

Which means instead of having a shortage of umpires, you would have NO umpires. 

To do as you say, the rules would need to be re-organized into a set of several dozen basic principles applied consistently across all cases.  Then a priority order of said principles.

The current rule books with their plethora of comments supported by a host of accompanying interpretation books further colored by undocumented 'best-practices' given out at sanctioned / unsanctioned umpire clinics is a chaotic mess we tolerate.  Tolerated by some just to be able to give back and do something that keeps us connected to a sport we love and others so they can become a high priest in an exclusive cult that provides them prestige and self-esteem. 

There - I said it.

[The Man in Blue]

@agdz59, where do I sign up for your newsletter?  

[The Man in Blue]

This play is not really any different than the scored runner kicking the ball away a few weeks ago.  It sucks that the offense is allowed to “interfere” (air quotes) when there isn’t a play, yet it essentially “creates a play” (real quotes) that they then benefit from.

An out is not called for, but there needs to be a “penalize to negate” provision added.  (In other words, dead ball and runners go back.)