ASA runner touching thrown ball

ichiromoco

Addicted to Softballfans
Runner on 1b going back to first after line drive caught by ss. R1 is watching throw as he is heading back and throw clearly is going to hit him. R1 slaps ball down or attempts to catch IMO (if it even matters) to protect himself and not to interfere. R1 gained no advantage and stayed at 1B. Anything to call here or play on?

Bench was chirping for an out.
 

Country469

Well-Known Member
judgement call. Putting your hands up to block it to stop it from hitting you, I'm gonna let you stay at first if safe. Swatting at the ball or doing anything to make the ball travel away from you, and the fielder, I'm probably gonna call interference if its a close play. Bottom line = sliding solves a lot of issues before they even come about.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
Intent to interfere is irrelevant. Did the runner's actions hinder the defense from getting the out? If so, it's interference.
 

ichiromoco

Addicted to Softballfans
Intent to interfere is irrelevant. Did the runner's actions hinder the defense from getting the out? If so, it's interference.

No it just prevented him from being hit squarely in the hip area but he clearly knocked it down with his hand. I do not think he could have avoided the throw.
 

Country469

Well-Known Member
Intent to interfere is irrelevant. Did the runner's actions hinder the defense from getting the out? If so, it's interference.

so if a runner turns slightly to let a ball that is inevitably hitting them catch their back rather than ribs, you're calling interference every time? I'm just curious here now. The way I saw this one was the guy reacting in his own defense and not affecting a play at all.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
No it just prevented him from being hit squarely in the hip area but he clearly knocked it down with his hand. I do not think he could have avoided the throw.

Then his actions alone did not hinder the defense from getting the out. The defense made a bad throw, and his actions were not what hindered the defense from getting an out.

Make sense?
 

ichiromoco

Addicted to Softballfans
so if a runner turns slightly to let a ball that is inevitably hitting them catch their back rather than ribs, you're calling interference every time? I'm just curious here now. The way I saw this one was the guy reacting in his own defense and not affecting a play at all.

I think the key part of his response was that the action did not hinder

Then his actions alone did not hinder the defense from getting the out. The defense made a bad throw, and his actions were not what hindered the defense from getting an out.

Make sense?

Yes. Makes sense.
 

Country469

Well-Known Member
I think the key part of his response was that the action did not hinder
.

I get that. The way I read this all was the guy was easily safe either way and did it to protect himself only. I see the easily safe yet ball still traveling all the time. Hence why I allow the guy to brace for impact or "defend himself" without any further calls. If he reaches out and swats at it or intentionally diverts the ball away from the fielder toward the fence or something of that nature. I'm calling him out then.
 

ichiromoco

Addicted to Softballfans
I get that. The way I read this all was the guy was easily safe either way and did it to protect himself only. I see the easily safe yet ball still traveling all the time. Hence why I allow the guy to brace for impact or "defend himself" without any further calls. If he reaches out and swats at it or intentionally diverts the ball away from the fielder toward the fence or something of that nature. I'm calling him out then.

If the throw didn't peg him he would have been out but I don't see how he could have avoided being hit
 

Country469

Well-Known Member
bad throws happen. If he was out dancing around and in between he brought it on himself. Now, that I have more info. He's out.
 

Joker

Well-Known Member
If the throw didn't peg him he would have been out but I don't see how he could have avoided being hit
he is out. he has the right to get back to the bag but if he knocks the ball down, he is out. let the ball hit you and you are safe
 

Country469

Well-Known Member
What exactly did he interfere with?

R1 slaps ball down or attempts to catch IMO (if it even matters) to protect himself and not to interfere

If the throw didn't peg him he would have been out but I don't see how he could have avoided being hit

seems like enough to convict in my book
 

ichiromoco

Addicted to Softballfans
bad throws happen. If he was out dancing around and in between he brought it on himself. Now, that I have more info. He's out.

He could not have avoided being hit and he was protecting himself I believe...yet he did touch the ball intentionally to protect himself. No advantage was gained other than saving himself a bruise.
 

Country469

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately the rules don't provide for someone to intentionally change the course of the ball, after being thrown, on a close play. Getting hit with a ball is an assumed risk when we play. Its pretty cut and dry imo.
 

ichiromoco

Addicted to Softballfans
Unfortunately the rules don't provide for someone to intentionally change the course of the ball, after being thrown, on a close play. Getting hit with a ball is an assumed risk when we play. Its pretty cut and dry imo.

That's what some were saying. My thought was he protected himself and did not gain any advantage or deny the defense an out. I was pitching at the time.

Just out of curiosity because I see it all the time is there a rule in ASA that prevents a player from catching a pitch? I know that is a different scenario but that seems to be allowed. Of course only players with all the gear and can't be bothered to move do it.
 

Joker

Well-Known Member
That's what some were saying. My thought was he protected himself and did not gain any advantage or deny the defense an out. I was pitching at the time.

Just out of curiosity because I see it all the time is there a rule in ASA that prevents a player from catching a pitch? I know that is a different scenario but that seems to be allowed. Of course only players with all the gear and can't be bothered to move do it.
if there is stealing allowed, catching the pitch would be a problem
 

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
R1 slaps ball down or attempts to catch IMO (if it even matters) to protect himself and not to interfere

If the throw didn't peg him he would have been out but I don't see how he could have avoided being hit

seems like enough to convict in my book

If it prevent the defense from making an out, it is INT. If it hit him, that is one thing. The fact that he knowingly knock a ball to the ground that could have put him out, that is INT
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
If it prevent the defense from making an out, it is INT. If it hit him, that is one thing. The fact that he knowingly knock a ball to the ground that could have put him out, that is INT

I don't know... If that ball had no chance of getting to the fielder's glove, then how did that hinder the defense?
 

ichiromoco

Addicted to Softballfans
Let me reiterate that from my view as the pitcher I do not think the runner hindered us from doubling him up. The ball was going to hit him regardless IMO. He merely protected himself. However he did in fact use his hand to deflect/knock ball/off of him. I think the no call was correct. I was trying to understand if there is a concrete rule where if runner showed any intent to make contact with the ball it would be interference even though I believe the ball was going to hit him 100%. That's the best way I can describe what happened.
 

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
I don't know... If that ball had no chance of getting to the fielder's glove, then how did that hinder the defense?
Well, if you want to be specific, there is no requirement in rule 8.7.J that requires interfering with a play, but the thrown ball.

Let me ask this, what runner trying to return to a base to avoid being double off slows his time by looking over his shoulder to watch a throw from the SS position? It isn't like the SS is within the runner range of sight, peripheral or otherwise. That is unless he is trying to track the throw to place his body in the path of that throw. As a player, I often ran a path to place myself between the ball and the base to which I was advancing. It is a defendable tactic until you look for the ball and with intent make contact with it.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
Well, if you want to be specific, there is no requirement in rule 8.7.J that requires interfering with a play, but the thrown ball.

Let me ask this, what runner trying to return to a base to avoid being double off slows his time by looking over his shoulder to watch a throw from the SS position? It isn't like the SS is within the runner range of sight, peripheral or otherwise. That is unless he is trying to track the throw to place his body in the path of that throw. As a player, I often ran a path to place myself between the ball and the base to which I was advancing. It is a defendable tactic until you look for the ball and with intent make contact with it.

But now, we're starting to judge intent again. And yes, you sometimes have to take that into consideration, but unless he swats the ball away from the defender and takes a possible play away, I'd have a tough time calling it interference.

We hear it over and over - it's not interference unless it's an act that actually hinders the defense. How's this any different? If the ball was going to hit him, then it's not interference.

Now, if he swats it away from the fielder, the ball goes to the outfield, and the runner then tries for second, you'd definitely have interference.
 

Country469

Well-Known Member
But now, we're starting to judge intent again. And yes, you sometimes have to take that into consideration, but unless he swats the ball away from the defender and takes a possible play away, I'd have a tough time calling it interference.

We hear it over and over - it's not interference unless it's an act that actually hinders the defense. How's this any different? If the ball was going to hit him, then it's not interference.

Now, if he swats it away from the fielder, the ball goes to the outfield, and the runner then tries for second, you'd definitely have interference.

the difference imo at least is using your hands on the ball as a base runner is not any sort of normal or typical behavior for a base runner.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
the difference imo at least is using your hands on the ball as a base runner is not any sort of normal or typical behavior for a base runner.

Certainly not. But I'm not going to reward the defense for a bad throw that forces the runner to protect himself.

If he actually prevents the defense from getting the out, then that's different. But if the throw has no chance of getting the out, then the defense was not hindered.
 

Country469

Well-Known Member
So, call him safe, but give him a warning about touching the ball like that?

It would have easily been to his own detriment doing so, as the ball may have gotten away from the fielder. That is where I have the most issue with this, as him stopping the play like that "could" (yes super far fetched here) have resulted in an out for the defense later on in the play had it been allowed to continue. Bottom line is the guy should keep his damn hands off the ball.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
So, call him safe, but give him a warning about touching the ball like that?

It would have easily been to his own detriment doing so, as the ball may have gotten away from the fielder. That is where I have the most issue with this, as him stopping the play like that "could" (yes super far fetched here) have resulted in an out for the defense later on in the play had it been allowed to continue. Bottom line is the guy should keep his damn hands off the ball.

And in these situations, I lean towards giving the defense the benefit of the doubt, not the offense. If I believe that the defense could have still made a play, then yes, it's interference.

I don't need to warn the runner. Runners don't need to be told that this could result in an interference call.
 

Joker

Well-Known Member
MAjiSpQ.jpg
 
Top