Auburn Alabama game

[ArmWhip]

Alabama runners on first and third. Runner on first takes off for second, batter has swung on the pitch and her momentum takes her over the plate and she partially interferes with the catcher's throw. However Auburn has a play on and the second baseman is cutting the throw to second with an eye on getting the runner leading off third. Catcher was able to make an accurate throw and the second baseman cuts the throw but holds the ball because the third base runner stayed put. Catcher claims interference on the batter. Umps look at the replay and rule in her favor, the batter is declared out. There was interference but it had no effect on the play. Thoughts?

 

[dbronstein]

I am not an umpire so my opinion is worth pretty much nothing. IMO, if it would have been interference if the catcher was throwing to second then it should be interference with the play they were running. The action of the batter should be the determining factor not the intent of the catcher's throw.

Now the umps can tell me why I'm wrong

 

[DonnyS]

Curious to know the actual rule that is applicable here. She was definitely in the way, but I agree that she did not impede the throw to second. I would have done the same thing and challenged it being ranked lower and being up on 'Bama.

 

[jackfrost]

Alabama runners on first and third. Runner on first takes off for second, batter has swung on the pitch and her momentum takes her over the plate and she partially interferes with the catcher's throw. However Auburn has a play on and the second baseman is cutting the throw to second with an eye on getting the runner leading off third. Catcher was able to make an accurate throw and the second baseman cuts the throw but holds the ball because the third base runner stayed put. Catcher claims interference on the batter. Umps look at the replay and rule in her favor, the batter is declared out. There was interference but it had no effect on the play. Thoughts?

Your original post says the batter "partially interfered". That's all that is necessary for an interference call. The catcher gets a clean shot to make the play and here she didn't because as you clearly state, she was "partially" interfered with. In college they treat this as a delayed dead ball. they let the play play out and then apply the ruling. In high school or travel ball this play would have been stopped as soon as the batter interfered. The batter would have been called out and runners would have had to return to the last base touched at the time of interference.

I didn't see the play, but the umpires seem to have gotten it correct. Alabama's batter committed interference and the umpires applied the correct penalty.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Here is the sticky point I'll bring up ... if the play was a designed cut by F4, it was not an attempt to retire the runner at second base. The NCAA rule actually doesn't specifically have the "play on a runner" verbiage, but the exception in the rule does provide a different outcome for "If the catcher is not making a play on a runner ..." I'll go with a controversial "return the runners." (Pours a drink and grabs the popcorn to watch the ensuing frenzy.)





As @jackfrost said though, NFHS and (most) travel ball, it is an immediate dead ball ... we don't get to see the outcome, so I would have interference there.

 

[ArmWhip]

I have mixed feelings about it because for the purpose of the play, second base cuts throw and picks off runner at 3rd, the interference was questionable, the throw was successful. The batter did not prevent the throw or cause an errant throw.

Here's the video replay, go to 8:20. There's a slo-mo after the play too.

auburn alabama softball game - Google Search

 

[Greatdaytobeawildcat]

Here is the sticky point I'll bring up ... if the play was a designed cut by F4, it was not an attempt to retire the runner at second base. The NCAA rule actually doesn't specifically have the "play on a runner" verbiage, but the exception in the rule does provide a different outcome for "If the catcher is not making a play on a runner ..." I'll go with a controversial "return the runners." (Pours a drink and grabs the popcorn to watch the ensuing frenzy.)

View attachment 27841



As @jackfrost said though, NFHS and (most) travel ball, it is an immediate dead ball ... we don't get to see the outcome, so I would have interference there.

For exception 2 you can't just ignore the second half of the sentence..."but the the batter interferes with the catcher's return throw to the pitcher". To enforce the exception, you would have to conclude that not only was the catcher not making a play on a base runner, but she was merely trying to return the ball to the pitcher. This would not appear to be the case - whether she was "making a play on a runner or not (I think a designed pickoff is a play), she definitely was NOT returning the ball to the pitcher.

 

[JOHNN]

This is the clip of the play in question. In my opinion it was pretty clear it was interference.

✂️ AL v AU Batter Interference

54 seconds · Clipped by John N · Original video "#21 Auburn vs #13 Alabama Highlights | 2023 College Softball Highlights" by Wheels

youtube.com

 

[ArmWhip]

I was wondering if the interference had to have a negative result to be called. I saw a play several years ago; runner on second, batter goes to bunt on an outside pitch and stumbles over the plate, catcher goes to throw to 3rd to get the runner breaking from second but the batter is in her way and the throw was wild. However the SS forgot to cover 3rd. In this case the batter interfered with the throw to 3rd but there was no one there for the throw. I don't think they called anything.

 

[The Man In Blue]

For exception 2 you can't just ignore the second half of the sentence..."but the the batter interferes with the catcher's return throw to the pitcher". To enforce the exception, you would have to conclude that not only was the catcher not making a play on a base runner, but she was merely trying to return the ball to the pitcher. This would not appear to be the case - whether she was "making a play on a runner or not (I think a designed pickoff is a play), she definitely was NOT returning the ball to the pitcher.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the exception was what applied here, but rather that there is basis for an interference penalty other than calling the batter out when there is not a play being made.

The real argument, and I can't make a strong case one way or the other, is whether a play was being made (or not) if the catcher's throw was never intended to put THE runner (not an assist to put out some random runner down the line) out. I don't feel it is, but I can't fault you for thinking it is.

The batter's actions were a textbook example of batter's interference. NCAA just mucks it up by not killing the ball immediately.