Runner interference or clean

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

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

May 10, 2021
149
43
The fielder has to right to make the play, and the runner does not have "immunity" in any particular line between bases. Sounds like interference but always a "had to be there" play. The thing that does sometimes influence me as an umpire is if the fielder decides to stay where they are and try to field the ball behind the runner. If the runner hinders the fielder's ability to make the play the she interferes. Just running in front isn't interference alone though. If the fielder stays back and doesn't show me that she had any interest in making the play where the runner is, then I don't have interference.
I have seen this multiple times from the C position. SS stays back, runner going to 3rd runs in front, no contact, not even close to contact and the coach wants interference. You cannot have interference when the SS is 5 feet in back of the runner with no contact. Not happening.
 
Jul 22, 2015
851
93
You cannot have interference when the SS is 5 feet in back of the runner with no contact. Not happening.
I would generally agree. There doesn't have to be contact, but it makes for an easier call when the fielder shows that she wanted to be in the spot where the runner was, but was prevented from getting there. At a minimum it needs to be clear that they were hindered from making the play, but many coaches want interference just because their fielder lost their focus on the ball.
 
Jun 1, 2015
500
43
In general, though, if you have a runner that pauses (even if not intentionally) in front of the fielder, would you be more inclined to call the Int then?

Not necessarily. As an umpire in this situation, I'm looking to see multiple things happening:

1.) Is the fielder attempting to make a direct play on the ball (approaching the ball, not waiting for the ball to come to her)?
2.) Is the runner maintaining progression to the next base and not trying to influence the play of the fielder in some way (i.e. making her wait for the runner to go by before trying to field - I've seen this happen before)?
3.) If it appears there's going to be a "meeting of the minds" at a specific spot between the bases, the fielder has the right of way provided, again, a direct play is being made on the ball. As said play is being made - is the runner attempting to avoid impacting the play (running around the fielder, etc)?

It's usually pretty bang-bang, and that can be why a lot of officials tend NOT to call it. I see it happen a bit when girls get the ground ball headed toward them and they slow down to time the jump over it, which can be just as out-inducing as running straight and getting pelted in the ankle by it.
 
Jan 8, 2019
664
93
This case was F4 playing back a little behind the baseline, coming up to field the ball, but not aggressively, and no collision was imminent. B2 was running, but when she got to where the ball was crossing her path (directly in front of F4), she slowed to nearly a stop so she could hop over the ball. F4 was clearly blocked by the slowdown and misplayed it. Again, I know, htbt.
 
Jun 1, 2015
500
43
You could make an argument either way. I would look at it from this perspective: Do you feel the runner, by slowing down/stopping to "hop over the ball" (in her defense) actually did it with intent to cause the fielder to misplay the ball? If the answer is YES (often at the higher levels - 16/18U where they know about gamesmanship), then I'd call INT. If the answer is NO (often at the younger levels - 14U and lower where they are legit trying to avoid being hit), then I'd say nothing and worry about it after the fact.

Worst case scenario: Let the play happen as it does. If a coach comes out to question the matter, get with your partner and discuss the situation and go from there. I tell all my coaches at the plate meeting - "If you have a rule question, let the play settle if we have said nothing, come out, calmly ask, and we'll conference if we need to. We can always bring them back but we won't push them forward." That usually works well enough.
 
Jul 22, 2015
851
93
This case was F4 playing back a little behind the baseline, coming up to field the ball, but not aggressively, and no collision was imminent. B2 was running, but when she got to where the ball was crossing her path (directly in front of F4), she slowed to nearly a stop so she could hop over the ball. F4 was clearly blocked by the slowdown and misplayed it. Again, I know, htbt.
As described here I don't have interference. Regardless of the pace at which it happens, if all the runner did was pass in front of the fielder I don't see grounds for interference. If it forced the fielder to pull up short of where she clearly wanted to field the ball, different story.
 

Strike2

Allergic to BS
Nov 14, 2014
2,044
113
Worst case scenario: Let the play happen as it does. If a coach comes out to question the matter, get with your partner and discuss the situation and go from there. I tell all my coaches at the plate meeting - "If you have a rule question, let the play settle if we have said nothing, come out, calmly ask, and we'll conference if we need to. We can always bring them back but we won't push them forward." That usually works well enough.

^^^ This. Anything that causes a dead ball can wait until the end of play if an umpire is unsure. Aside from the almost inevitable argument from one of the benches, most anything can be rolled back to when the play should have been killed.
 
May 10, 2021
149
43
I would generally agree. There doesn't have to be contact, but it makes for an easier call when the fielder shows that she wanted to be in the spot where the runner was, but was prevented from getting there. At a minimum it needs to be clear that they were hindered from making the play, but many coaches want interference just because their fielder lost their focus on the ball.
I had one a couple years ago.....ground ball to the SS.....hits SS glove and ball bounces forward...runner accidentally kicks the ball in between 3rd and home....same thing coach wanted interference.

I told him his SS booting the ball doesn't start the interference chain. Wow was he mad.
 
Aug 25, 2019
1,066
113
Not necessarily. As an umpire in this situation, I'm looking to see multiple things happening:

1.) Is the fielder attempting to make a direct play on the ball (approaching the ball, not waiting for the ball to come to her)?
2.) Is the runner maintaining progression to the next base and not trying to influence the play of the fielder in some way (i.e. making her wait for the runner to go by before trying to field - I've seen this happen before)?
3.) If it appears there's going to be a "meeting of the minds" at a specific spot between the bases, the fielder has the right of way provided, again, a direct play is being made on the ball. As said play is being made - is the runner attempting to avoid impacting the play (running around the fielder, etc)?

It's usually pretty bang-bang, and that can be why a lot of officials tend NOT to call it. I see it happen a bit when girls get the ground ball headed toward them and they slow down to time the jump over it, which can be just as out-inducing as running straight and getting pelted in the ankle by it.
So are you saying the fielder should collide with the runner? In my call I wrote about, the SS was charging in for the ball but pulled back because she was going to collide with the runner who made no attempt to do anything but run straight to third. In your opinion, should the SS run into the runner to get a clear interference and maybe get one or both injured? That's why I called it hinderance. Even though it was unintentional, the runners actions did not allow the fielder to field the ball cleanly.
 
May 10, 2021
149
43
So are you saying the fielder should collide with the runner? In my call I wrote about, the SS was charging in for the ball but pulled back because she was going to collide with the runner who made no attempt to do anything but run straight to third. In your opinion, should the SS run into the runner to get a clear interference and maybe get one or both injured? That's why I called it hinderance. Even though it was unintentional, the runners actions did not allow the fielder to field the ball cleanly.
I would say it is the runners responsibility to avoid contact and interference. It is the SS responsibility to make a play on the ball. "Well the left shoelace partially blocked the vision of the SS." Is that where we are at? Come up and make the play. If the SS is playing behind the running lane it is going to be difficult to get an interference call from me.

I will mention the interference rule in general has been changed over the years to promote safety.


What is the runner's options? I cant make contact, I cant get close, I cant block their vision....IMO we have went too far. "Well the noise of the footsteps hindered my ability to make the play and the ball went thru my legs"

It is a tough call for sure. Anyway that is my view. I would like to hear others take on it.

Are there umpires out there calling interference on runners running in front of the SS playing behind the runner based on visual impairment?
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,478
Members
21,445
Latest member
Bmac81802
Top