Just finished a 12u rec game. Batter hit a slow weak ground ball to SS. SS fielded it and made a bad throw into the dirt to the home base side of 1st. 1st baseman went after the ball falling over onto her hands and knees in the process with her legs/butt blocking the baseline and upper body into foul territory. She didn't catch the ball, but did knock it down. She was able to pick up the ball and reach back to tag the runner. To avoid the collision our runner checked up and ran back to the inbound side of the baseline. Because the runner hit the brakes and had to run around her, the 1B was able to get the out. The runner clearly checked up and had to deviate from the baseline before the 1B had the ball. Ump argued that the fielder had the right to go after the thrown ball and it wasn't obstruction. I thought that only applied to a batted ball? I don't want the encourage our players to intentionally run over another player at full speed, but is contact needed to get the obstruction call? The 1B was in a pretty compromising position and could have gotten hurt if our player ran across her legs or put a knee into the girls ribs going if she went over the top of her.
Play at 1st Question
- Thread starter lancer360
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
I will try to break down the several questions I think you are asking. Presuming you are playing under USSSA rule set.
OBSTRUCTION: is the act of a defensive team member which hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play or when a catcher or fielder hinders a batter unless the fielder is in possession of the ball or making an initial play on a batted ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional, physical or verbal.
Neither exception seems to apply from your description so obstruction is a possibility.
INTERFERENCE: is an act which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.
A. Offensive interference is interference (physical or verbal) by the team at bat, or when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline; or when a coach physically assists a runner during playing action .
Again, using your description of the action, interference doesn't seem to apply.
IF the umpire didn't judge that the fielder already had the ball, and IF he judged that the runner altered her path or her speed because of where the fielder was, then I think the call was incorrect.
NEVER coach your girls to just run over the fielder. A couple reasons for this, player safety (both hers and the opponents) is the most important, but also malicious contact overrules obstruction and would preclude your getting the call regardless.
In the scenario as stated, since the umpire misapplied a rule, this would be protestable. If he just didn't see it the way you did, then the ruling is correct.
OBSTRUCTION: is the act of a defensive team member which hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play or when a catcher or fielder hinders a batter unless the fielder is in possession of the ball or making an initial play on a batted ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional, physical or verbal.
Neither exception seems to apply from your description so obstruction is a possibility.
INTERFERENCE: is an act which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.
A. Offensive interference is interference (physical or verbal) by the team at bat, or when a runner creates malicious contact with any fielder with or without the ball, in or out of the baseline; or when a coach physically assists a runner during playing action .
Again, using your description of the action, interference doesn't seem to apply.
IF the umpire didn't judge that the fielder already had the ball, and IF he judged that the runner altered her path or her speed because of where the fielder was, then I think the call was incorrect.
NEVER coach your girls to just run over the fielder. A couple reasons for this, player safety (both hers and the opponents) is the most important, but also malicious contact overrules obstruction and would preclude your getting the call regardless.
In the scenario as stated, since the umpire misapplied a rule, this would be protestable. If he just didn't see it the way you did, then the ruling is correct.
Assuming it's a direct quote or very nearly so, this "Ump argued that the fielder had the right to go after the thrown ball and it wasn't obstruction" seems to make it a misapplication of the rules and not a judgment call. Of course, it's also a rec game, so there may not be any kind of protest option.
Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure if contact was required to get the obstruction call. Sounds like the ump screwed up the call. I kept asking him to clarify the rule on why it wasn't obstruction and he just kept saying she was out and then said he was done talking about it and walked away. I think I pissed him off as he called a runner out at first a couple of plays on a close, but what I thought obvious safe play. That ended the game and prevented us from taking it into overtime. A parent caught that last play on video and confirmed my suspicion that the runner was safe. Oh, well. Guess I need to learn to pick my battles better.
Contact is never required to get an obstruction call. Unfortunately, IME, the only way you get the obstruction call is with contact involved.
Agreed. In a tournament we didn’t get a clear interference call and I called time and asked the field ump. She said there was no contact and my SS checked up giving up the base path. So I told the SS to go after the ball and make contact if needed. Umpire then told me she would eject me if that happened. So being the calm quiet person I am, I asked then what is she supposed to do? You just said no interference because there was no contact, but you will eject me if there is contact? It didn’t end well but I went and sat on my bucket...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, this is a good battle to pick. You just happened to find one of the umpires (and unfortunately they comprise much too large a percentage of umpires) who both doesn't know the rules and is far more likely to dig in and then hold a grudge than he is to correct a mistake.
Umpires like that shouldn't be umpiring, but the sad truth is we need them, too, because there just aren't enough good umps to go around.
USSSA RULES:
INTERFERENCE. Interference is an act which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.
No contact necessary. DD was playing 2nd when she came in to field a hit ball, runner on first was trucking down to 2nd, so DD pulled up (since she would of gotten flattened), and was unable to make the play. Umpire said no interference, although that's a clear example of interference without contact.
INTERFERENCE. Interference is an act which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.
No contact necessary. DD was playing 2nd when she came in to field a hit ball, runner on first was trucking down to 2nd, so DD pulled up (since she would of gotten flattened), and was unable to make the play. Umpire said no interference, although that's a clear example of interference without contact.
You obviously haven't had very many good umpires. In my time time it's rare to actually have contact and obstruction. It happens but, rarely in my games
Similar threads
