Crash at 1st with No Double Base
- Thread starter Wellphyt
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
In a world with 300 bats.................. why wouldn't you buy a $150 bat and spend the other $150 learning how to play 1B properly
Double bags are no friend of mine - IMO, they just allow the girls to keep doing it the wrong way until they have to learn it the right way the hard way when they're bigger, heavier and the forces involved in a collision are much greater
LL boys also have double bags.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
Lot of opinions, but little rules fact.
#1. The 3' line has nothing to do with this scenario and cannot be used as a matter for ruling INT.
#2. Fair/foul territory is irrelevant
#3. If the retired BR was simply running out the attempt and did nothing to create the INT, it should not be INT.
#4. Comp is correct, if the INT is called on anyone other than an active B/BR/R, the runner closest to home is ruled out.
#5. However, if the umpire believed the retired BR interfered, s/he must also determine the defense would have executed the out, not just a play, on R1.
#1. The 3' line has nothing to do with this scenario and cannot be used as a matter for ruling INT.
#2. Fair/foul territory is irrelevant
#3. If the retired BR was simply running out the attempt and did nothing to create the INT, it should not be INT.
#4. Comp is correct, if the INT is called on anyone other than an active B/BR/R, the runner closest to home is ruled out.
#5. However, if the umpire believed the retired BR interfered, s/he must also determine the defense would have executed the out, not just a play, on R1.
Last edited:
I would say, without having seen it, that it was a bad call. It sounds like insidental contact. If the throw to 1st leads the 1st baseman to reach into the runner to catch the ball, and the runner and 1st collide, it doesn't matter whether the runner is in fair or foul territory. It's not interference unless the umpire judges the runner to have run into her intentionally. Also if the defense is trying to turn a double play and the runner going to 2nd is hit by the throw to 1st, it's not interference unless it is judged to be intentional. In this 2nd case, as well as your case, the runner is in fair territory and is already out. The runner cannot just 'disapear' as soon as they are ruled out.
I really appreciate everyone taking the time to comment. MTR, thanks for breaking it down the way you did. FPMark, I really liked your remark about the runner can't be expected to disappear. That's a good way of putting it. That's bascially what the umpire said the batter-runner was suppose to do. All our players are taught to run through 1st base on a batted ball. We had three instances on Saturday where the umpire called the batter-runner out and then reversed his call when the girl at 1st juggled/dropped the ball. Had these batter-runners peeled off as soon the umpire called them out, they would have been on their way to the dugout when the umpire reversed his call.
Regarding the three foot line, I have always understood that line to be a restriction on the runner to prevent them from running all over the field. I have never interpreted it as having anything to do with the BR having to avoid contact. Our BRs are taught to avoid contact with fielders when possible. ASA rules don't allow BRs to purposely run into fielders. What happend on Saturday was that the 1st base girl had her foot on the homeplate side of 1st base and when she pivoted to throw home, the batter-runner got clipped as she was running through the base. Basically the batter-runner reached the base at the same time as the girl at 1st was making her pivot to throw home. I have Howard Kobata's defensive skills dvds, and our players are taught to take their glove foot towards the ball and then pop to make the throw.
Regarding the three foot line, I have always understood that line to be a restriction on the runner to prevent them from running all over the field. I have never interpreted it as having anything to do with the BR having to avoid contact. Our BRs are taught to avoid contact with fielders when possible. ASA rules don't allow BRs to purposely run into fielders. What happend on Saturday was that the 1st base girl had her foot on the homeplate side of 1st base and when she pivoted to throw home, the batter-runner got clipped as she was running through the base. Basically the batter-runner reached the base at the same time as the girl at 1st was making her pivot to throw home. I have Howard Kobata's defensive skills dvds, and our players are taught to take their glove foot towards the ball and then pop to make the throw.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
What happens if the retired runner "peels off" in the same direction as the defender? That IS interference. As long as the runner is where they are supposed to be, the defender should be well aware of where they can move to complete the play unimpeded.
The 3' lane has two purposes: It is a haven for the BR to NOT be a kick-ball like target of a defender and protects the runner from an INT call for a violation. BTW, the violation is interfering with a defender RECEIVING a throw at 1B and has zero bearing on any other rule. And there is no requirement that the BR stay in the 3' lane
Maybe the umpire read that screwed up 2011 interpretation of this play issued by NFHS and tried to apply it in an ASA game. 
Maybe the umpire read that screwed up 2011 interpretation of this play issued by NFHS and tried to apply it in an ASA game.
Uh Oh, What interpretation is that?
2011 Case Book (8.6.18.B):
B2 bunts with R1 on third base and no outs. As F1 fields
the ball, R1 holds near third base. When F1 throws to first base, R1 tries to score.
B2 is put out at first base. As F3 attempts to play on R1 at the plate, she is forced
to move two steps into fair territory to avoid hitting B2 with the throw.
Consequently, F3's throw is not in time to put out R1. RULING: If, in the umpire's
judgment, B2 hindered F3's play on R1, R1 is declared out.
It sounds like NFHS now really does expect retired runners to go *POOF* and vanish from the baseline.
B2 bunts with R1 on third base and no outs. As F1 fields
the ball, R1 holds near third base. When F1 throws to first base, R1 tries to score.
B2 is put out at first base. As F3 attempts to play on R1 at the plate, she is forced
to move two steps into fair territory to avoid hitting B2 with the throw.
Consequently, F3's throw is not in time to put out R1. RULING: If, in the umpire's
judgment, B2 hindered F3's play on R1, R1 is declared out.
It sounds like NFHS now really does expect retired runners to go *POOF* and vanish from the baseline.
