Batter Runner Interference

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Sep 19, 2018
928
93
Had this happen this weekend. In the end, it did not make a difference but I am wondering what the correct call is. My dd's team was at bat.
1st and 3rd, 1 Out (I doubt it matters), 3&2 count.

On release runner on 1st steals.
Ball 4.
Catcher comes up throwing, Batter Run starts to go to 1st. There is contact.
Catcher bumps the Batter Runner back into the batters boxes and throws down to 2nd.
Runner on third steals home on catcher release, batter runner backs out of the way of the play at home.
Runner at home is then called out on Batter Runner Interference.

I can see how the batter runner and Catcher bumping into each other might cause and issue, but it seems to me that the Batter Runner has a legal right to start going down to first base.

Is this a cleat cut instance and I don't know the rules?
 
May 1, 2018
659
63
Hmmm with the runner on 1st being automaticallly safe at second and the throw going to second. This seems weird.
 

Strike2

Allergic to BS
Nov 14, 2014
2,044
113
Hmmm...interesting...

There is no opportunity to make an out by throwing to 2B in this situation, so I'm not sure what the BR is interfering with on a Ball 4 throw to 2B. I'm sure there's a case play that one of the resident umpires will dig out.
 
Last edited:
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
Weird ... just weird ... and I think my answer is going to be weird too ... if I need to cite another code, let me know. It's all pretty much going to be the same though -- it seems to me there was no play being interfered with, thus there cannot be any interference.

Here are the two NFHS articles we could consider, 8-2-7 and 8-2-8 ...

ART. 7 . . .The batter-runner interferes with a fielder attempting to make an initial play, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box, makes contact with a fair batted ball before reaching first base, or (F.P.) interferes with a dropped third strike. If this interference, in the umpire's judgment, is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the runner closest to home plate shall be called out. A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference.

ART. 8 . . . The batter-runner interferes with a play at home plate in an attempt to prevent an obvious out at home plate. PENALTY: (Arts. 4 through 8) The ball is dead and runner(s) must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. (Art. 8) The runner is also out.


Did the batter-runner interfere with the catcher making a play on the runner at second base? Since the runner is not liable to be put out (due to the force on the walk), there is no play to interfere with.

Did the batter-runner interfere with a play at home plate? From the OP's description, there was no play at home plate to interfere with.

I would say it is possible that the umpire may have been thinking of NFHS 3-5-5, but it also is not applicable since there was no play at home plate. A throw to second base, even if there was a viable play, would not qualify.


ART. 5 . . . Offensive team personnel, other than the base coach, shall not be near a base to which a runner is advancing or returning; nor shall anyone fail to vacate any area (including a coach's box) needed by a fielder in an attempt to put out a batter or runner. (8-6-16)

PENALTY: (Art. 5) The ball is dead. The runner closest to home is out and all runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
 
Last edited:
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
Hmmm...interesting...

There is no opportunity to make an out by throwing to 2B in this situation, so I'm not sure what the BR is interfering with on a Ball 4 throw to 2B. I'm sure there's a case play that one of the resident umpires will dig out.

Not the on-deck batter ... and not the batter since ball four was already called ... look at batter-runner rules. (I had to edit my post because I went to the batter sections first.)
 

Strike2

Allergic to BS
Nov 14, 2014
2,044
113
Not the on-deck batter ... and not the batter since ball four was already called ... look at batter-runner rules. (I had to edit my post because I went to the batter sections first.)

I did misread that part of the rule. That's why I deleted it. I think we're looking at this the same way.
 
Jul 22, 2015
851
93
@The Man In Blue I agree with what you posted but was trying to wrap my head around another scenario. Leaving all of the details as they were, the BR "interferes" with the C and causes the throw to go into the outfield, easily allowing the runner from 3B to score. Since the BR wasn't actually guilty of interference (as there was no play at 2B), do we have anything?
 
Feb 13, 2021
880
93
MI
While there is no INITIAL play at 2B, there could be, if the runner goes past the bag (I know, very 8unlikely, but then that throw down to 2b was unlikely as well).

The ruling that I can think of that is most in line with the other rules as written (minus any casebook language I cannot find) is batter is out on the interference, runners return. However, there is still the argument that there was no play at 2B at the time the interference occurred.

The FAIREST ruling, though it could be called MSU, is that B walks, R1 to second on the force and R3 returns on the interference.
 
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
@The Man In Blue I agree with what you posted but was trying to wrap my head around another scenario. Leaving all of the details as they were, the BR "interferes" with the C and causes the throw to go into the outfield, easily allowing the runner from 3B to score. Since the BR wasn't actually guilty of interference (as there was no play at 2B), do we have anything?

You use "interferes" in quotes and say the BR "causes the throw to go into the outfield."

Barring an intentional action, I still believe it is nothing beyond an error on the catcher as there was no play to be made at second base. No play means no possible interference.

Now ... just to wrap your mind some more. The NFHS rule doesn't say the interference has to occur on a play. It says:

SECTION 32 INTERFERENCE (OFFENSE)
ART. 1 . . . Interference is an act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder; or when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline.


You could argue that there is no "play requirement" by that verbiage. I would then ask "What did she impede since there was not a play to be made at second?" I mean really, if you go strict language there, my runner could tell your F6 a riddle and be called for interference because she confused a fielder.
You could also argue that the catcher should get the benefit of doubt -- that it was an honest and legitimate play since it is a reaction to the runner stealing. There could be an argument to be made here. However, the interference call could ONLY occur at second base ... not with the runner coming home. So ... I still think no interference since the runner cannot be put out.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,468
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top