Umpires. Would you call interference on this play?

[Gambler Bob]

Skip to the 56:42 mark of this game. Notre Dame vs. Duke



Just curious on your thoughts on the Notre Dame runner that is out on the force play at 2nd base. Could this be considered interreference on the runner?

I feel like the runner on 2nd base certainly altered the throw to the catcher but not sure if this could be considered interreference.

 

[Sparky Guy]

The runner did a popup slide going into the base being ready to advance if she is able. She was where she was supposed to be. She had every right to be on the base. She didn't move towards the fielder. The fielder was set up to go to 1st with the throw standing behind the base. Being in a fielder's throwing lane is not interference. If that was the case there would be interference on every rundown play.

My guess is that was a designed play by ND. Fast lead runner. Big player does a popup blocking the fielder's throwing lane. Worked for them if it wasn't by design.

 

[The Man In Blue]

As for the pop-up slide itself, some baseball codes would consider that a violation of their force play slide rules. A pop-up slide is not a common slide technique on a double-play ball.

Reading the NCAA Softball verbiage, that is not violation in and of itself. The runner avoided contact, so that much was legal.

I think you could make an argument for an interference call, but it is probably a 50/50 argument based on an umpire's perspective. U1 did not have a good angle (or responsibility for the call). U3 also had no angle. PU should have picked up on it.

Just being in the throwing lane is not interference. Using an uncommon technique to put yourself in the throwing lane and hindering the throw is interference.

By rule, you could support it:

1.13 Interference
Equipment or the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire or spectator that denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable

12.17.2.2
The base runner may not interfere with a fielder attempting to throw the ball.

 

[Gambler Bob]

I would not consider this to be interference either. I would consider this to be good base running or good coaching, or you can say using the rules to gain an advantage. I believe that being called for interference on this play would be so rare that it is worth the risk. More like just part of the game.

 

[MoJo]

No interference.
When you look at how infrequent interference IS called and the underlining "no contact, no foul". Then this play isn't close.

 

[The Man In Blue]

No interference.
When you look at how infrequent interference IS called and the underlining "no contact, no foul". Then this play isn't close.

Except that there is no part of the rule that says "no contact, no foul." In fact, it is expressly the opposite of that so we don't encourage intentional injuries.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I would not consider this to be interference either. I would consider this to be good base running or good coaching, or you can say using the rules to gain an advantage. I believe that being called for interference on this play would be so rare that it is worth the risk. More like just part of the game.

I'm curious what part of the rule they used to their advantage. By rule, it is pretty clearly interference. I believe the call wasn't made because of the positioning of the umpires.

Ump Pub Trivia ... say interference DID get called. What is the penalty here?

 

[EdLovrich]

Also, the player at secondis no longer a runner, she has already been retired. This puts more of an onus on her for avoiding any interference with the defense

 

[Northball]

I'm curious what part of the rule they used to their advantage. By rule, it is pretty clearly interference. I believe the call wasn't made because of the positioning of the umpires.

Ump Pub Trivia ... say interference DID get called. What is the penalty here?

I'll bite: Dead ball. Runner at 2nd obviously out, runner that crossed the plate returns to 3rd. No run scores. Batter on the play at 1st. Umpire gets a bunch of static from one side or the other. Maybe both.

 

[MoJo]

Except that there is no part of the rule that says "no contact, no foul." In fact, it is expressly the opposite of that so we don't encourage intentional injuries.

Correct and agreed. Yet reality on the dirt is that EVERY discussion that I have had with an ump, coach, spectator put the maximal emphasis on "contact" between players. Rarely do any of these include "interference without contact" or accepted.