Runner Interference

[SoftballEnthusiast]

NFHS softball. Runners on 1st and 2nd and nobody out. Groundball to shortstop and the runner on second makes contact with fielder on her way to 3rd. The shortstop goes on to field the ball and still throws it to second before the runner from first makes it to second for the force out. Umpires rule interference on the runner going to 3rd, but that it becomes a dead ball so the runner going to second is still safe. Is this the correct ruling since the defense still completed the out at second despite the interference?

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, SoftballEnthusiast said:

NFHS softball. Runners on 1st and 2nd and nobody out. Groundball to shortstop and the runner on second makes contact with fielder on her way to 3rd. The shortstop goes on to field the ball and still throws it to second before the runner from first makes it to second for the force out. Umpires rule interference on the runner going to 3rd, but that it becomes a dead ball so the runner going to second is still safe. Is this the correct ruling since the defense still completed the out at second despite the interference?

Unfortunately, yes.  The ball becomes dead at the moment the interference occurs.  The batter-runner is placed on first base and any runners that are forced to move up because of that are also advanced.  Any runners not forced to move up go back to where they were.  Whatever happens afterwards "never happened."

Caveat . . . If the umpire judges the interference prevented a double play, the umpire can call the second runner out. 

In your case, it does not sound as if the fielders were working on a double play.  The interference plus the out they were going for is not a double play.

[Jimurray]

6 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Unfortunately, yes.  The ball becomes dead at the moment the interference occurs.  The batter-runner is placed on first base and any runners that are forced to move up because of that are also advanced.  Any runners not forced to move up go back to where they were.  Whatever happens afterwards "never happened."

Caveat . . . If the umpire judges the interference prevented a double play, the umpire can call the second runner out. 

In your case, it does not sound as if the fielders were working on a double play.  The interference plus the out they were going for is not a double play.

Does softball not require intent to interfere and stop a DP? MLB runner recently threaded the needle and maybe got away with just him being out. 

[The Man in Blue]

38 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Does softball not require intent to interfere and stop a DP? MLB runner recently threaded the needle and maybe got away with just him being out. 

The language is "obvious intent" in the NFHS Softball rule book.  I have a hard time justifying rewarding the offense, so take that for what it is worth.  Probably just my opinion, but getting hit with a batted ball (I assume that's the MLB play you are referring to) and contacting a fielder are two very different things.  Contacting a fielder who is fielding the ball seems pretty intentional to me.

[Velho]

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

(I assume that's the MLB play you are referring to)

For anyone's reference this is the play @Jimurray is referring to (sorry, Mr. English Teacher, I mean "to which Jimurray is referring")

 

[Velho]

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Probably just my opinion, but getting hit with a batted ball (I assume that's the MLB play you are referring to) and contacting a fielder are two very different things.  Contacting a fielder who is fielding the ball seems pretty intentional to me.

Do you mean "it's easier to assess intent" on runner contact with the fielder as opposed to the ball? I can follow that but ask since the rule makes no distinction between the two (at least OBR I didn't look use Softball). 

[MadMax]

16 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

The language is "obvious intent" in the NFHS Softball rule book.  I have a hard time justifying rewarding the offense, so take that for what it is worth.  Probably just my opinion, but getting hit with a batted ball (I assume that's the MLB play you are referring to) and contacting a fielder are two very different things.

I think any differentiation or divergence between softball and baseball on this may be due to the (much too) compressed dimensions of softball’s infield. 

[The Man in Blue]

15 hours ago, Velho said:

Do you mean "it's easier to assess intent" on runner contact with the fielder as opposed to the ball? I can follow that but ask since the rule makes no distinction between the two (at least OBR I didn't look use Softball). 

Uhh . . . Maybe I'm not following what you are saying.  A runner being hit with a batted ball and a runner interfering with a fielder are different rules.  They both fall under interference, but they are different in all codes.

With the fielder, the runner is making contact with the fielder.  With a batted ball, the ball is hitting the runner.  While a runner can time that latter one, it is going to be a much higher bar to judge intent than with a runner crashing into a fielder who is set up or moving towards the ball.

 

4 hours ago, MadMax said:

I think any differentiation or divergence between softball and baseball on this may be due to the (much too) compressed dimensions of softball’s infield. 

I have argued for years (since I ran the rec league) that the field needs to be expanded, particularly in the college game.  

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Uhh . . . Maybe I'm not following what you are saying.  A runner being hit with a batted ball and a runner interfering with a fielder are different rules.  They both fall under interference, but they are different in all codes.

 

Yes -- but (under OBR) for the purposes of getting two outs, they are the same rule:

 

(6) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully
and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in
the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to
break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall
call the runner out for interference and also call out the
batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In
no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such
action by a runner (see Rule 6.01(j));

[Velho]

33 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Yes -- but (under OBR) for the purposes of getting two outs, they are the same rule:

What he said. That's the context of my comment to @The Man in Blue

Agreed that it's easier to subtly run into a fielder on purpose than letting the batted ball hit you. 99.9% of players below MLB won't do it as smooth as Rizzo did.

 

[MadMax]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

Agreed that it's easier to subtly run into a fielder on purpose than letting the batted ball hit you. 99.9% of players below MLB won't do it as smooth as Rizzo did.

However, just because a batted ball hit you (the Runner) in a DP situation does not, in and of itself, constitute a 2-outs INT penalty. 

I have to emphasize the other side of the same coin. Yes, the rule exists, but that does not justify an amateur umpire to grab 2-outs on batted-ball INT “just cuz”, or “we need outs”. INT-upon-fielder is much more avoidable, and therefore, completely justified in getting 2 outs in a DP situation. 

[Velho]

38 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Yes, the rule exists, but that does not justify an amateur umpire to grab 2-outs on batted-ball INT “just cuz”, or “we need outs”.

I don’t understand. People are there to watch me, why wouldn’t I give them a show?

[MadMax]

25 minutes ago, Velho said:

People are there to watch me, why wouldn’t I give them a show?

If people are there to watch you, and stroke your precious ego… why are you so eager to leave? Why are you bellowing “Coaches!!!” a full 25 minutes prior to posted game time, calling every close play Out, and calling a zone from box-to-box, nose-to-toes?? Why not bask in the adulation of your adoring fans?? 

[The Man in Blue]

Scarcity creates demand!