Interference

[CenCal]

Question 1: When a batter/runner runs for 1st after a bunted ball, what must the batter/ runner do to avoid being called out for interference, when the fielder throws the ball to 1st base to get the out. At a previous practice for DD's travel team, one of the coaches was explaining to the infielders that once they have the ball and the runner is in the way of the throw (I'm assuming that the runner is outside the running lane into fair territory) to throw directly at the batter's back, the umpire will call her out because she was outside the lines.

Question 2: As a batter/runner is rounding the bases, how close can a defender be to the base without being called for interference. Whether a play is being made to a base or not. I overheard my DD's coaches saying to run into the baseman, if they are covering the base with no play being attempted at that base.

I want to know before I decide to approach the HC or not because, I did not like the aggressive way they were teaching the girls to be on the field for when they are playing defense or offense. Aggressiveness is okay, it just sounded to me that it was okay to intentionally throw at girl's backs and run over baseman who are covering the bags because they are in the way when they shouldn't. It wasn't just me, I could see on the player's faces they were unsure whether or not to be "rough". (12U team in case your wondering)

What are the rules to these situations and am I wrong to feel this way about the way some of the coaches are instructing the team?

 

[Comp]

To question #1, if the runner is not in the running lane and interferes with the throw to 1st, or impedes F3 in the ability to catch the ball, they should be called out for interference. Merely being out of the lane is not automatic interference. As you have presented, if in my judgement the throw into the back of the batter/runner was on purpose, there will be no interference call and may also result in an ejection for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Question #2, for correct terminology, the offense interferes, the defense obstructs. Any defensive player that hinders a runner without posession of the ball is committing obstruction. There is no rule as to how far away from the base they must be, they just have to be far enough away to not hinder the runner.

Your coach is teaching unsporting behavior. Teaching players to purposely throw at runners and to initiate contact with defensive players will eventually lead to warnings and or ejections for unsportsmanlike conduct.

 

[GI Tom]

For 12U, these are very poor coaching choices in my opinion. From my perspective as an umpire, I will attempt to answer your questions.

For question 1, Comp's answer above is spot on. I would interpret it the same way. If I believe there was intent to throw at a runners back, I'm ejecting that player for unsportsmanlike conduct.

For question 2, I always try to determine if the obstruction would have prevented the runner from advancing to the next base during that play. If not, I typically do not award obstruction. Furthermore, if I believe there was intent on the baserunner to intentionally run into a defender, I would also eject them for unsportsmanlike conduct.

For a 12U team coach to be bringing these lessons to the team, in my personal opinion, I say that he/she is teaching bad methods of play and not focusing on fundamentals as a 12U team should. This type of coaching will likely lead to unpleasant circumstances and more shockingly, potential serious injuries that are completely avoidable.

There is no such thing as a controlled collision, and the first time one of your DD's teammates, or your DD follows the coaches advice to run into a player and breaks something and is out for weeks, will highlight why I believe this is a poor coaching choice in my opinion.

I would further ask the HC how he/she would feel if the other team did the same that they are coaching to his/her team. Likely, they wouldn't react kindly to it.

 

[FPMark]

I agree that teaching these methods are not good examples of sportsmanship also, however what would happen if the runner was in fair territory and the throw did not hit the runner in the back (question 1)? Would the ump call her out anyway, or would s/he claim it was an errant throw? As for question 2, I don't know how many times I have seen runners slow down and run around defenders standing in the way without obstruction being called and had the umpire explain there was no contact, so no obstruction.

If you can eject players for unsportsman-like behavior for intentionally running into defenders, who are in the way, and for intentionally hitting runners in the back, who are out of the running lane, why not eject defenders standing in the way (obstruction) and runners interfering with throws (interference)? Why not just make the rule that anytime there is a collision, somebody gets ejected? Then the ump can decide who was most at fault and throw them out.

Is there something in the rules that says, when a defender is in a position that would obstruct the progress of a runner, the runner must make every effort to avoid making contact with the defender or risk being ejected? What about defenders who intentionally stand in the way of the runner to try to get them to slow down, and then move at the last minute? Does the runner HAVE to slow down in case they DON'T get out of the way in time? If they don't, is that intentionally running into the defender and unsportsman-like?

Don't misunderstand, I don't want anyone to get hurt, but if defenders are in the way of runners, they will. I see it as the coaches responsability to teach infielders to get out of the way, not the runners responsability to avoid them. If your infielders can't get out of the way of runners, they belong in the outfield.

The OP had 2 questions that had one thing in common, rule violations. While I don't support intentionally exploiting them, I also don't support umpires trying to determine whether someone should be ejected because, in their opinion, it could have been intentional or avoided. No rule violation, no potential injuries.

 

[GI Tom]

Mark, there are in fact rules regarding interference and obstruction that answer all of your questions, pertinent to ASA. I shall quote/point them out for you directly out of the 2011 ASA rulebook. I am assuming the OP was talking about ASA, if not, some of the below will change.

Also, sometimes people refer to the rulebook and state that the act of umpiring is completely objective. This is completely untrue. A large part of umpiring is subjective. Therefore, and I will quote you, you will have to deal with an umpire trying to determine if someone should be ejected "because, in their opinion it could have been intentional or avoided." Why? Because it does state it in the rulebook! Here are some of the obstruction/interference rules along with the pages in the rule book it corresponds to. Again, this is for ASA only.

Interference: Rule 8-2 (f)(1) "When a batter runner interferes with a Fielder attempting to field a batted ball, or (2) when a batter runner interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball. "(Page 85)

The above is the rule definition. Now we must go to the rules supplement, the first is on page 117, Supplement 13, Interference:

"In an effort to prevent injury and protect a defensive player attempting to make a play on the on a runner, a runner must be called out when they remain on their feet and crash into a defensive player who is holding the ball and waiting to apply a tag. To prevent the out ruling, the runner may slide, jump over the defender holding the ball, go around the defender or return to the previous base touched. If the act is determined to be flagrant, the offender is ejected. A runner may slide into a fielder."

Then there is more regarding your question about throwing the ball, Rules supplement 33, Interference, page 125:

"Interference is the act of an offensive player or team member that impedes, hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Interference may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual distraction, or any type of distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution of a play. Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered."

So, regarding interference, yes, a player can be ejected if the umpire determines it to be flagrant. Since there are many different umpires, this will be up to that individual to make their personal determination.

Regarding Obstruction, it is covered under Rule 8-5(B) 1-4 on pages 88-89. There are alot, so I will only quote the ones that apply to OP's post:

The definition is 8B: "When a fielder not in possession of the ball or not in the act of fielding a batted ball, obstructs the progress of a runner or batter-runner."

Rule 8-5 (4) - (Effect) "The obstructed runners shall always be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction."

We must now also again visit the rules supplement on Obstruction on page 129, Rule 36: This is a long one so I will only quote out of paragraph 2 in rule b: "Whenever obstruction occurs, whether or not a play is being made on a runner, the umpire should declare obstruction and signal a delayed dead ball. The ball remains live. If the obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base they would have reached had obstruction not occurred, a dead ball is called and the obstructed runner, and all other runners affected by the obstruction, shall be awarded the base(s) they would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, had obstruction not occurred."

So, to close, yes, I will eject players for unsportsmanlike conduct if I deem it flagrant. Obstruction does not have to be contact. The important thing to take away from this is that could the runner have reached the next base if the obstruction had not occurred, in the discretion of that umpire.

If there is contact that does not appear flagrant, nor does it have an impact on the runner reaching the next base, in my opinion, I will not call any obstruction.

Keep in mind, sometimes there is a mindset that umpires suffer from Napoleon syndrome. I can assure you, I want a clean, easy game to umpire, but that doesn't always happen and I am forced to make decisions as I interpret them. I do so unbiased and to the best of my ability. There is alot of subjectivity involved, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. Yes, there are bad umpires, yes, you will run across some in the games you may watch or coach. However, a large majority try to get it right from my personal experience.

Teaching these types of methods to 12U is not good for the game or for those girls and will lead to ejections and other nasty injuries. Hope this help clarifies further my original answer.

 

[FPMark]

Tom, I appreciate your answer, but you missed the point.

If the catcher fields a bunt in front of the plate, throws the ball to 1st, and hits the runner (running in fair territory) in the back, what's the call? Nothing in the rules you quoted suggests ejection of the catcher. I teach my players to throw the ball to the 1st baseman. If the runner is in between, they may get hit. Sorry, but you don't try to throw around the runner. Same situation, the catcher throws the ball into RF trying to throw around the runner, whats the call? It COULD still be called interference, but I wouldn't bet on it. Throwing around the runner is always an option, so any time the runner gets hit in the back it can be called intentional.

Your quote from the rules offers that the OFFENSIVE player may be ejected for flagerant violation of the interference rule, not DEFENSIVE as you cited in your post. No rule violation, no injury.

As for your explination of question 2, rule, supplement and all, I don't see anything that mentions that the runner has the responsebility to avoid any contact with the fielder or risk ejection. Once again, if the runner is looking where they are going, they always have the option of avoiding contact with a fielder standing in the way, so anytime there IS contact, should the runner be ejected? The only time the rules mention ejection is if the fielder has possesion of the ball, and the runner stays on her feet and intentionally runs into the fielder. Without the ball, it is the fielder's responsability to stay out of the runner's way.

My objection to your post was that you are trying to say that a violation of the rules that may result in injury, is less important than whether or not the other team is trying to intentionally take advantage of the violation. IOW, turning the offender into the victim. You are placing the blame on the wrong person.

 

[GI Tom]

Mark, firstly, interference is ALWAYS on the offensive player, and obstruction is ALWAYS on the defensive player, just as Comp explained above.

To answer your question, if your catcher throws the ball to 1st, hits the runner in the back as she's running in the line, the ball is live and I let the play go on, if she is safe at first, she is safe. There is no interference. There is no ejection just because a thrown ball hit a player. There doesn't have to be an ejection on every collision, hit runner, etc.

Here is where I think your getting confused, if I, as the umpire, in that same scenerio, believe that the runner INTENTIONALLY got in the way of the ball, (running outside of the line trying to cut down the angle, etc) or the catcher INTENIONALLY threw at the runner, then I can call either interference, and potentially unsportsmanlike conduct and ejection (on the runner) or unsportsmanlike conduct and ejection on the catcher. (Not interference or obstruction) There would be a difference on this ruling between a batted ball and a thrown ball. In this case, it is a thrown ball, therefore the runner is not automatically out.

And in response to question 2, it does say the runner has the responsibility to avoid contact with the player. The risk of ejection is in the sole discretion of the umpire, as its stated, otherwise it's just runners interference. Conversely, if a defender is just standing there and contact is made, it's just obstruction but it's potentially obstruction and unsportsmalike conduct if I, as the umpire, believe the defender INTENTIONALLY stood there to try and hit the runner, or purposely get in way of the runner.

Trust me, I don't want to eject ANYONE in a softball game, and I do my level best to keep all players and coaches on the field. But if for one second I believe there was intent to harm another player in any way, shape or form, (INTENTIONALLY running into or throwing at), then I am ejecting that player for unsportsmanlike conduct. Luckily, in my 15 years in softball, only once have I had to deal with a situation like this as a Coach or an umpire.

The OP stated the Coach was teaching the girls to do the above intentionally, which is much different than you teaching your girls to throw to the 1st baseman. There is no intent to hit a runner in your case.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[FPMark]

It does to a certain extent, but the question remains; How can you tell the difference? If the ball hits the runner, how do you determine 'intent' when the runner is in fair territory? Isn't it reasonable to assume that it was INT vs. an intentional act by the catcher to hit her? The rule is written to keep this from happening, so if the runner is in violation, shouldn't you assess blame to the runner?.. not be looking for a reason to eject the catcher? I say this because you would really have to be looking hard (splitting hairs so to speak) in order to determine the catcher's intent.

 

[GI Tom]

The answer is alot of times you can't, so you end up defaulting to only calling the most blatant of plays that are unmistakable to each respective umpire, which is why it doesn't happen very often.

So, a runner outside of the line going to first on a bunt is going to be called for runner interference when hit by the throw from a catcher unless I saw something so unquestionably blatant by the catcher which causes me to focus on the catcher. I don't look for any one thing over the other, I watch the whole play and then asess what is the correct ruling from there based on the events.

To reiterate, I don't want to eject anyone.

Here's a recent example of what I call blatant unsportsmanlike conduct. Last week, while umpiring in a pool game no less, there is a play at the plate. There is a a collision at home (girl sliding into home hits catcher at full speed). She gets under the tag and is called safe. Immediately after the collision, the catcher falls on top of the girl sliding because the runner slid in such a manner that it took out the catchers legs. Catcher falls on top of runner fairly hard. Runner, as she is getting up, clearly and unmistakably elbows the catcher under the chin. Well, now we have an ejection for unsportsmanlike conduct. Everything was fine until that point. Yes there was a collision, but prior to the elbow, there was no intent for harm by any player, just girls playing softball. The throwing of the elbow was with the intent to harm.

Same with your catcher, if she does something so blatant that I think she purposely hits a batter runner, I'm calling it.

 

[BretMan]

A batter-runner can never be called out "just because" she was running out of the three-foot running lane.

If the catcher throws one into right field because the batter-runner is in the way, that's simply a bad throw by the catcher. For the throw to be interfered with, it must be a "quality throw". That is, a throw directed toward the fielder at first base such that there is some reasonable chance of it being caught to result in an out.

Judging that a catcher intentionally threw at a B/R is a tough call to make. But I would use a similar guideline as above. Was the throw directed to the vicinity of the fielder at first base? If it was, and it hits the B/R, then I can't really envision judging that the catcher was throwing at the runner. On the other hand, if the throw is directed away from the base, but at the B/R, this might become a possible unsportsmanlike conduct call.