Here's One !!!

True Story :

Yesterday's game against Anson, runners on second and third, girl @ bat hits the ball between the SS / Third Baseman, SS backhands ball starts to throw, SS never saw runner as she prepares to throw the ball home to get runner @ the plate, the runner @ 2nd comes by her blind side,and actually runs into the ball while still in the hand of SS, I mean the timing is perfect. The ball never leaves the SS hand, and is ruled a tag out.Umpire rules runner coming form 2nd out by tag (NO INTERFERENCE), but meanwhile the runner at third scores, basecoach argues interference that runner ran into SS hand,and could not make the throw to home !! What's your call ???

GURU

 

IMO, it's the right call. You can't have interference if their is no bodily contact. Unintentional contact with the ball by the runner is not interference and there was no contact between the players. The SS had already fielded the ball and the baserunner has the right to be where she was.

Now if the SS would have released the ball and it would have hit the runner, or if the runner would have hit the SS arm, then you would have a different situation. If the blue thought there was interference in this example, the runner coming from second would be out, and if he thought the runner going home would have been thrown out, she would be out too.

Guru- this is a very good case study and should be a question on umpire exams.

 

Here's some food for thought on that one.

Interference is the act of an offensive player that impedes, hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. A defensive player must be allowed the opportunity to field or throw the ball anywhere on the playing field. An offensive player must vacate any space needed by the defensive player to execute a play.

This is from ASA Website:

FROM ASA website: In an effort to help umpires become more uniform in judging interference throughout the country, the ASA has addressed several rules relating to interference that contained the word “intentional”. Specifically, the word “intentional” has been removed from Rule 7, Section 7 Q; Rule 8, Section 2 F [3]; Rule 8, Section 7 J [3]; and, Rule 8, Section 7 P. Umpires now need only to base their decision on whether interference occurred or did not occur, and not the intentions of the offensive player. Moreover, removing the word “intentional” from these sections aligns these rules with the definition of INTERFERENCE in Rule 1.

I would say in this case, it was unintentional, but it was interference.

 

GREAT !!!

GREAT ANALYSIS !!!


gURU

 

I disagree as the base runner has the same right to that area. If the runner would have slowed down or stopped and impeded the throw, then you could have interference without contact. IMO, it's no different than when a catcher is trying to pick off a runner at a base, if a batter's normal actions causes the catcher to make a bad throw or causes contact, you do not have interference. The batter does not have to duck or move as she is acting "normally" in the box. If the batter isn't doing something to impede the catcher, it is the catchers responsibility to make sure she has a clear lane to throw.

I think it is the same thing in the example asked about by guru.

 

I don't know if thats right, because....

....once there is interference then the "play" is dead. The kid on 3rd would go back to her base. The batter would stay or go back to first. Now, as I read what happened I agree with BMac, the runner advancing to 3rd basically got tagged out real hard.