runner interference

[morgan]

One from this weekend, ASA rules, 0 out, runner on 1. Bouncer to F6 near 2nd base, F6 fields ball, two steps, steps on base, and starts to throw to 1st. Her momentum has taken her toward 1st and as she throws, (depending on your point of view) runs into or is run into by R1, who did nothing to avoid contact. The contact was not malicious, but (I felt) affected the outcome of the play (safe at 1 on a bang-bang play).

I went out to ask about an already-out runner interfering with a fielder making a throw, and heard the ump say things like "the runner can go straight into the base" and "the shortstop has to go to one side or the other". Really? So should we be teaching the girls the old baseball roll-block?

[PDad]

From viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15036&p=138558#p138558

As a runner would she not be aware she was just put out and her non actions of moving out of the way be interpreted as int? As an ump what would you all see there?
She knows she is out but continues to run to the base without any effort to move out of the way...
What is a reasonable response on the runners part here?

The runner's job is to attempt to gain the next base safely. Just because the defense executes a play does not mean the runner must stop immediately or disappear into thin air.

As has been stated numerous times, there must be an act of interference. Performing their duties as a runner is NOT an act of interference. About now, someone is going to say, "but the runner should veer off" Really? Show me a rule which requires a runner to be a mind-reader.

What happens if the runner veers off in the same direction at the defender is moving to make a throw? Are you going to want an INT call then, also? Damn right the DC will be out there in a heartbeat if it isn't called! And what will the argument be? S/he moved into my fielder's throwing lane? Again, show me a rule mentioning a throwing lane. There isn't, but there is a rule which prohibits the runner from committing an act of interference and that is exactly what the runner did when s/he stopped trying to advance to the base and moved to an area s/he did not belong.

Like the catcher is taught to plan to throw somewhere else because the batter is supposed to be in the BB, the runner is supposed to be in the basepath and the defender should plan on throwing the ball somewhere else besides that area.

[UmpSteve]

One from this weekend, ASA rules, 0 out, runner on 1. Bouncer to F6 near 2nd base, F6 fields ball, two steps, steps on base, and starts to throw to 1st. Her momentum has taken her toward 1st and as she throws, (depending on your point of view) runs into or is run into by R1, who did nothing to avoid contact. The contact was not malicious, but (I felt) affected the outcome of the play (safe at 1 on a bang-bang play).

I went out to ask about an already-out runner interfering with a fielder making a throw, and heard the ump say things like "the runner can go straight into the base" and "the shortstop has to go to one side or the other". Really? So should we be teaching the girls the old baseball roll-block?

Try this thought process:

If the runner is close enough to the defensive player at the base to make contact, then the play was close enough for the runner to still be trying to beat out the play. Runners don't just go 'poof' (credit to MTR) instantaneously when put out, nor can they or should they be expected to run the bases as if they know they will be out. That would include giving up or veering off.

That said, the next issue is if the runner acted in a manner consistent with trying to beat the play (which may include sliding, but doesn't require it; the runner can legitimately attempt to beat the play standing), or in a manner solely designed to hinder the fielder. If the former, no call; if the latter, that is an "act" of interference. Unfortunately for you, only the umpires' judgment counts.

[Bretman]

Three comments on the first post...

- ASA rules require a runner to "avoid contact" with a fielder who has the ball and is standing in one spot waiting to make a tag. That obviously wasn't the case here, so the requirement to "avoid contact" doesn't apply.

Runners always have the right to try reaching a base standing up. The umpire gets to judge if what the runner did was part of a legitimate effort to reach the base or an act designed to impede the fielder. With the fielder moving into the runner's path as you described, the runner is going to get the benefit of the doubt on an interference call. Had the fielder been standing stationary at the bag, and the runner had plenty of time to avoid her, or moving off to the side of the bag, instead of moving right into the runner's otherwise legal basepath, the benefit of the doubt might shift to the fielder.

If we required runners to "veer off" out of the basepath, we would increase the chance of a runner moving into whatever throwing lane the fielder has chosen. Now that would be interference, since the runner moved off the direct line right into the base!

- The term "malicious contact" does not appear anywhere in the ASA rule book. You can have crash interference with a fielder holding the ball waiting to make a tag, in which case the runner is out. You can have flagrant contact by a runner (an attempt to injure the fielder, or purposely and forcefully crash into her with the intent of dislodging the ball) whereby the runner is also ejected. But there is no "malicious contact" rule in ASA softball.

- Comparing a runner performing a "roll block" into a fielder's legs with a runner taking a legal upright path into a base is silly.