USSSA Interference and 2nd ball on field

[v8ramair]

The league is USSSA slowpitch and I have a couple questions to a few odd plays that happened. They were probably the right calls, but I'd like to hear what other umpires would say.

1. Runner is on 1st. Batter hits ground ball down 1st base line, runner on first takes off, but obviously can't see if the fielder got it, so runs full speed down base line. Makes it about 2/3 down, 1st baseman throws to 2nd. Runner gives self up by running to the right of the baseline just before the SS on 2nd base catches it. Runner is about 5 to 7 feet to the right of the baseline, but the SS momentum carries him to the line of the runner...(seemed like he took extra steps to get that far, but probably momentum). He doesnt make the throw and umpire calls a double play due to inteference. Umpire said the runner got in the way and its his fault. I suspect this is mostly a judgement call, so the umpire is right on judgement calls, but what is the general consensus? If the runner already gave himself up, and the fielder goes into that direction, is that pretty much automatic interference?

2. Runner on 1st. Batter flies out, and runner goes back to first, but outfielder throws a wild throw to the infield, so the runner takes off to 2nd. The ball is now near the dugout (but not in) between 1st and 2nd, while team scrambles for the ball, but the runner stops at 2nd because the ball mysteriously shows up under the pitcher. It turns out, a 2nd ball somehow wound its way to the pitcher. They then grab the first ball and everyone is confused. A claim was that the catcher grabbed a 2nd ball from the umpire's stash in the backstop and threw it in. Umpire says no advancement but no explanation what happened. He calls the play dead, then picks up the 2nd ball.
We asked for an explanation of what happened, and the umpire stated there is no rule, and its a judgement call. He thought the runner couldnt make it to 3rd, based on the "real" ball, but of course the runner didn't try to even go because the 2nd ball was already in the pitcher's hand. So the question here is, I suspect there's no rule for this, and the umpire will be correct in his judgement call. And the second question is, the other team seemed to think that it was screwed up for this to happen, and offered the runner on 2nd to take 3rd. The runner didn't take it, as he was still confused. Could he have advanced to 3rd if the other team gave it? The umpires had nothing to say.

Thanks in advance for analyzing these situations!

 

[ureout]

1) the runner did the right thing and gave himself up...it is the fielders job to throw over or around him ....2) I'm confused on this one, you say the ball is near the dugout but not in...and it's also beween 1st and 2nd??? ... if the ball was near the dugout and a 2nd ball was thrown into play I woud have a dead ball and award the runner any bases I thought he would have obtained...and I would be very generous in my judgement.. I would award the runner 3rd if I thought he had even the slightest chance to get there just to punish the defense for there stupiity

 

[baseman]

1) It's the right call. Runner interfered with the SS.
2) I've never seen this before.

 

[fitzpats]

In scenario 1, that's complete judgement call. Yes the fielder gave himself up, but if the umpire decided that the runner hindered the throw the fielder made, then interference can be called. Given that the runner slid to the outfield side of the basepath from first to second, I could easily see that call being made because the SS is running on that same line to take a throw and have momentum.

As for the second ball on the field, you could rule obstruction as the fielder was not in possession of the ball and impeded the progress of the runner by putting the second ball in play. At that point, the umpire, if there was obstruction in his/her judgement, would advance the runner at least one base, and possibly more if in the umpire's judgement the runner could have made it safely to another base.

 

[v8ramair]

Sorry, ureout, pointed out a mistake in my description for the 2nd scenario. It should read the real ball was between 1st and home, near the dugout.

One thing to point out is, I'm not sure if the umpire knew how this 2nd ball came into play but I kept hearing that it was the catcher who did that. So I'm not sure if he was generous to the other team because of this. But in any case, we tried asking the umpirr after the game and all we got is that it's a pure judgement call and he felt the runner wouldn't have made it to 3rd. Then got really irritated saying why are we still talking about this, but we said this is the first time we've ever seen something like this! We then dropped it to respect his wishes, so that's why we arent sure if he knew where the ball came from.

Thanks for all the other perspectives, sounds like they're pretty much all judgement calls and could go whichever way the umpire sees.

 

[MaverickAH]

1. One thing that I've learned as both a player & an umpire is that veering off of your base path after being put out is grounds for a potential interference call. As a runner, you are supposed to be advancing to the next base along your base path. it's where the defense expects you to be & it's where the umpire expects you to be. Of course you can't be expected to disappear after being put out but you can be expected to be in a reasonable position along your base path & that is what the defense is expected to work around. When a runner starts veering off left or right, they've now changed their base path & that's where problems come in. If in the umpire's judgement the runner leaving his base path is what caused the SS not to be able to complete the dp, he made the correct call.


2. One of the basic tenants of umpiring is, "Follow the ball". How the umpire managed to lose track of the location of the game ball is a bit perplexing. Also, having other balls on the field while play is going on is asking for trouble! Wear a ball bag or keep extra game balls in a box or in a bag hanging on the fence. They should not be in a position where they can potentially cause confusion. In any case, if the umpire had actually kept his eye on the ball in play, he would've been in a much better position to rule correctly. I think that in this situation, if the wrong ball was picked up & it prevented the runner from advancing, appropriate bases should have been awarded.

 

[RDD15]

On scenario 1, Maverick has it right. The middle infielder should expect the runner to be heading straight toward the bag. This is why "giving yourself up" and veering off as a runner is a bad decision. When the runner went outside of his basepath, he interfered with the shortstop. If the SS had a chance at a double play when he caught the ball had the runner not veered off, I have a double play.

On scenario 2, I think Ureout has it right. I would have obstruction on the defense, and I would err on the generous side if the catcher did indeed pick up a ball that was clearly not in play and throw it in. I would also be very tempted to eject the catcher if this was the case. I suppose it depends on where the stash of balls were being kept and if the catcher could have possibly thought that the in-play ball was the one he grabbed.

 

[v8ramair]

On scenario 1, Maverick has it right. The middle infielder should expect the runner to be heading straight toward the bag. This is why "giving yourself up" and veering off as a runner is a bad decision. When the runner went outside of his basepath, he interfered with the shortstop. If the SS had a chance at a double play when he caught the ball had the runner not veered off, I have a double play.

On scenario 2, I think Ureout has it right. I would have obstruction on the defense, and I would err on the generous side if the catcher did indeed pick up a ball that was clearly not in play and throw it in. I would also be very tempted to eject the catcher if this was the case. I suppose it depends on where the stash of balls were being kept and if the catcher could have possibly thought that the in-play ball was the one he grabbed.

Thanks for the info - looks like it was a bad decision. However, if the base runner would've kept on the base path after being out, and the SS would've done a quick throw to first, after touching 2nd, instead of taking 2-3 steps after touching 2nd (which veered him 5-7 feet off of 2nd), there would've been interference too - now if this was the case, 99% of interference I've seen was because the runner stayed on the base path after being out, and did not try to veer away. So I can't really see how staying on the base path would've been the right decision because that's a guaranteed interference call, unless he were to drop to the ground instantly...or slide into the dirt, well away from the base. The reason why the runner didn't veer left is because the SS was right handed, and that could be interference too, but of course, veering into the infield is a strange situation because now they're in the middle of a tight infield, if the play were to stay alive for longer.

So to me, even though the runner clearly obstructed the SS from throwing, which probably deserves an interference call, it sounds like, no matter what decision was made, the SS was in control of getting an interference call?

Please don't think I'm trying to start a controversy here, I'm merely trying to see how these situations can be avoided in general - in all my time playing softball, veering off has always worked getting out of the way, but didn't work in this case.

 

[RDD15]

Thanks for the info - looks like it was a bad decision. However, if the base runner would've kept on the base path after being out, and the SS would've done a quick throw to first, after touching 2nd, instead of taking 2-3 steps after touching 2nd (which veered him 5-7 feet off of 2nd), there would've been interference too - now if this was the case, 99% of interference I've seen was because the runner stayed on the base path after being out, and did not try to veer away. So I can't really see how staying on the base path would've been the right decision because that's a guaranteed interference call,


Please don't think I'm trying to start a controversy here, I'm merely trying to see how these situations can be avoided in general - in all my time playing softball, veering off has always worked getting out of the way, but didn't work in this case.

If this is the case, then I think that your umpires need to attend a clinic. As has been covered many times in this forum, if the runner is going toward second base, he is where he should be. He is allowed to try to achieve the base until he is retired, and at that point he is not expected to disappear. Once he veers off to the side, he is no longer trying to get to the bag. When turning a double play, the proper mechanic for a middle infielder is to step out of the way of the runner. The runner veering is interference.

 

[v8ramair]

If this is the case, then I think that your umpires need to attend a clinic. As has been covered many times in this forum, if the runner is going toward second base, he is where he should be. He is allowed to try to achieve the base until he is retired, and at that point he is not expected to disappear. Once he veers off to the side, he is no longer trying to get to the bag. When turning a double play, the proper mechanic for a middle infielder is to step out of the way of the runner. The runner veering is interference.

Excellent analysis - makes perfect sense. I think the hardest part was that the runner was in a perfectly bad spot for this - he knew he was going to be out, so wanted to get out of the way, but was just far enough so he couldn't slide. Our umpires usually call interference on these because they didn't slide or get out of the way, and they knew they didn't have a chance at making 2nd. Knowing that he'd be out, the runner tried to get out of the way early enough, but ended up blocking. I see how it can go both ways, but I agree your explanation the most.

A couple examples of calls recently - SS gets the ball, tags 2nd and the base runner still running towards him. He tries to duck, but SS throws ball right at his head and hits hit forehead, about 5 feet away from him. He was called for interference since he was "in the way".
(I've seen this countless times, but in other times, the SS had to change his motion to throw around the runner, still in the base line, and overthrows it. He then gets the interference call)

Another example (and clearly the runner's fault) was he stayed in the base line, but started waving his arms when the SS got the ball. Clearly, he's idiot for doing that and deserved the double play.

 

[RDD15]

A couple examples of calls recently - SS gets the ball, tags 2nd and the base runner still running towards him. He tries to duck, but SS throws ball right at his head and hits hit forehead, about 5 feet away from him. He was called for interference since he was "in the way".
(I've seen this countless times, but in other times, the SS had to change his motion to throw around the runner, still in the base line, and overthrows it. He then gets the interference call)

I mean, I am not the most fleet of foot, and on a hard grounder I often am not close enough to the bag to slide. I will however, still slide even if I am nowhere near the bag. I stay in the basepath and am not interfering, and I am (hopefully) keeping the ball from my forehead.

But yeah, aside from that, your umps probably need a clinic. I might talk to the UIC for the league and ask for clarification and for a remedy to a bunch of umps missing something here.

 

[v8ramair]

I mean, I am not the most fleet of foot, and on a hard grounder I often am not close enough to the bag to slide. I will however, still slide even if I am nowhere near the bag. I stay in the basepath and am not interfering, and I am (hopefully) keeping the ball from my forehead.

But yeah, aside from that, your umps probably need a clinic. I might talk to the UIC for the league and ask for clarification and for a remedy to a bunch of umps missing something here.

Thanks lot - appreciate your feedback. I will write a note to the league commissioner to open this discussion. I seem to always get the response as a "safety issue" so "get out of the way." But I see your point on consistency - it's actually safer if we know where the runner will be, on the base path, rather than having the unpredictable option to veer left right, duck, slide, etc.

 

[RDD15]

Thanks lot - appreciate your feedback. I will write a note to the league commissioner to open this discussion. I seem to always get the response as a "safety issue" so "get out of the way." But I see your point on consistency - it's actually safer if we know where the runner will be, on the base path, rather than having the unpredictable option to veer left right, duck, slide, etc.

I would ask them to not quote the "safety issue" and rather tell you about the rule as written. If there is a safety issue with the written rule (there isnt), the rule should be modified.

 

[EAJuggalo]

#1. As has been stated, the rule is it's interference if the runner does something out of the ordinary. Running to the base is what he is supposed to be doing, he's not out until he's called out by the umpire, and we've all seen that easy flip to 2B get mishandled and the runner would have been safe if they hadn't veered out of the line. I'm much more likely to call interference on a runner veering off than I am one running straight to the bag.

#2. The umpire should only be concerning himself with the actual game ball. Unless he knows how the second ball got on the field and feels it was done maliciously, at that point I would be declaring obstruction, awarding two bases to the runner and tossing the catcher.

 

[qwertle8]

Thanks for the info - looks like it was a bad decision. However, if the base runner would've kept on the base path after being out, and the SS would've done a quick throw to first, after touching 2nd, instead of taking 2-3 steps after touching 2nd (which veered him 5-7 feet off of 2nd), there would've been interference too - now if this was the case, 99% of interference I've seen was because the runner stayed on the base path after being out, and did not try to veer away. So I can't really see how staying on the base path would've been the right decision because that's a guaranteed interference call, unless he were to drop to the ground instantly...or slide into the dirt, well away from the base. The reason why the runner didn't veer left is because the SS was right handed, and that could be interference too, but of course, veering into the infield is a strange situation because now they're in the middle of a tight infield, if the play were to stay alive for longer.

In this situation as a runner (playing Coed it comes up often) I veer to the infield or slide. Slide always takes you out of interference, unless you take out the fielder. Veering to the infield takes you away from SS momentum on the play. Really the only possible obstruction is with 2b making a throw, since the play is going back to 1st the 2b doesn't continue momentum through the bag into the throw like a SS does. The 2b throw almost always comes straight down the base path, which you now are not in anymore.

 

[v8ramair]

Adding an observation from one of the team members. It turns out that the SS kept driving to his left because nobody was covering first. The first baseman fielded the ball, which was somewhat deep, and the pitcher didn't realize this until later, so he was running to the bag. Nobody was still at first by the time the runner was there. So he was just side stepping, waiting for someone to cover. Hence why the runner cutting right, and SS cutting left ended up on the same path. Teammates seem to think the only reason for it then is the safety issue call because he had no chance of getting the runner out.

With that, same call?

 

[EdFred]

"driving to his left"

What?

 

[v8ramair]

"driving to his left"

What?

Sorry for the confusion. Side stepping to his left...letting momentum continue to carry to his left...basically taking steps continuing in the same motion, waiting for a first baseman to get there.

 

[qwertle8]

Adding an observation from one of the team members. It turns out that the SS kept driving to his left because nobody was covering first. The first baseman fielded the ball, which was somewhat deep, and the pitcher didn't realize this until later, so he was running to the bag. Nobody was still at first by the time the runner was there. So he was just side stepping, waiting for someone to cover. Hence why the runner cutting right, and SS cutting left ended up on the same path. Teammates seem to think the only reason for it then is the safety issue call because he had no chance of getting the runner out.

With that, same call?

That makes it a tougher call. Let me ask you this though, should calls be made on what happens or on the end result of plays? If someone hits a pop up and I run into you knocking you on your butt as you try to catch it... is it interference if you drop the ball and not interference if you catch it? What if I do this three times in a row, is it "ok" as long as you keep making the catches so I don't need to stop doing it?

 

[v8ramair]

That makes it a tougher call. Let me ask you this though, should calls be made on what happens or on the end result of plays? If someone hits a pop up and I run into you knocking you on your butt as you try to catch it... is it interference if you drop the ball and not interference if you catch it? What if I do this three times in a row, is it "ok" as long as you keep making the catches so I don't need to stop doing it?

Good question, I personally believe in the attempt, rather than end result. Of course intent would be nice too, but there's no true way to know intent. That being said, this is exactly why I'm asking real umpires what their decision would've been. But in any case, I'm not sure if theres a true right or wrong answer when this is generally deemed a judgement call, based on what I read above.

 

[qwertle8]

Good question, I personally believe in the attempt, rather than end result. Of course intent would be nice too, but there's no true way to know intent. That being said, this is exactly why I'm asking real umpires what their decision would've been. But in any case, I'm not sure if theres a true right or wrong answer when this is generally deemed a judgement call, based on what I read above.

The runner interfered with game play... by how much, intent of the runner and possibility of getting the additional out are all things that multiple people looking at it could come up with multiple answers. So again I would say slide or turn to the left, if you turn to the right live with the call, if you stand in the base path understand a ball might hit you.

 

[Hiltz]

As a runner, you are supposed to be advancing to the next base along your base path. it's where the defense expects you to be & it's where the umpire expects you to be. Of course you can't be expected to disappear after being put out but you can be expected to be in a reasonable position along your base path & that is what the defense is expected to work around. When a runner starts veering off left or right, they've now changed their base path & that's where problems come in.

As has been covered many times in this forum, if the runner is going toward second base, he is where he should be. He is allowed to try to achieve the base until he is retired, and at that point he is not expected to disappear. Once he veers off to the side, he is no longer trying to get to the bag. When turning a double play, the proper mechanic for a middle infielder is to step out of the way of the runner. The runner veering is interference.

I run into this situation all the time playing 2b. If I'm waiting at the base for the transfer, I slide-step back towards RF when I throw. If I get to the base as the transfer is getting there, I run through the base towards third, turn and throw. Most runners in my local leagues invariably veer the same way I'm going.

I actually had one runner veer into me twice in the same game, once to his left and the next time to his right. He came up to me and apologized and said he was always unsure which way to go. I told him to run straight, every time.

I mean, I am not the most fleet of foot, and on a hard grounder I often am not close enough to the bag to slide. I will however, still slide even if I am nowhere near the bag. I stay in the basepath and am not interfering, and I am (hopefully) keeping the ball from my forehead.

I do the same thing and I wish all runners would.

 

[EAJuggalo]

That makes it a tougher call. Let me ask you this though, should calls be made on what happens or on the end result of plays? If someone hits a pop up and I run into you knocking you on your butt as you try to catch it... is it interference if you drop the ball and not interference if you catch it? What if I do this three times in a row, is it "ok" as long as you keep making the catches so I don't need to stop doing it?

I'm killing the play and calling the runner out immediately if they interfere with the defense trying to catch a pop up. If I think there was any chance they were getting more than one out I'm calling those too. If I think it's intentional I'm tossing the runner.

 

[RDD15]

Adding an observation from one of the team members. It turns out that the SS kept driving to his left because nobody was covering first. The first baseman fielded the ball, which was somewhat deep, and the pitcher didn't realize this until later, so he was running to the bag. Nobody was still at first by the time the runner was there. So he was just side stepping, waiting for someone to cover. Hence why the runner cutting right, and SS cutting left ended up on the same path. Teammates seem to think the only reason for it then is the safety issue call because he had no chance of getting the runner out.

With that, same call?

So if no one was covering first base, the runner that was retired was not impeding the defenses opportunity to retire the BR. Right? No interference here, as long as I am reading correctly.

 

[qwertle8]

So if no one was covering first base, the runner that was retired was not impeding the defenses opportunity to retire the BR. Right? No interference here, as long as I am reading correctly.

There is just too much subjective information in the original scenario, are the observations of the OP completely accurate or maybe colored by his interests? What exactly is "nobody covering 1st base" is it someone is a few steps away but not at the base or that nobody is close enough to have any chance to move on the throw to get to the base before the batter? For that matter can the OP tell if the ump looked at 1st base to notice what is/is not happening there? The batters team feels like the runner just happened to get in the way through bad luck after the force out at 2nd, but maybe the defensive team sees it as that same runner made an obvious change of angle to stay in front of the SS.

Is it the runners attempt to interfere or the end result of interfering that counts? Could reasonably argue that the runner in the area of 2nd had no idea what was happening at 1st base. So I go back to my "running into an infielder trying to catch a pop fly" example. Is interference based on the catch being made/dropped or on the actions of the base runner regardless of the outcome of the play? In this case is the runner at 2nd interfering based on a throw being made or because of taking away the possibility of a throw?

 

[v8ramair]

There is just too much subjective information in the original scenario, are the observations of the OP completely accurate or maybe colored by his interests? What exactly is "nobody covering 1st base" is it someone is a few steps away but not at the base or that nobody is close enough to have any chance to move on the throw to...

Seems like you're thinking the latest question is a "did the umpire make the right call?" As continually pointed out, its more of a "what would you call based on the given info". We've pretty much already deemed it a judgement call and no real right or wrong answer, just a matter of why you would make the call. Being accurate and colored in interests is irrelevant because we are seeing what you would do given these observations, not "is the OP trying to sway us to give a no interference call". I can guarantee not many will be fully accurate in their observations in a play that lasts a mere seconds with dozens of players on the field, running around, etc. In any case, if there is not enough information, that is also a good answer IMHO, as I can agree there are too many moving parts. "Nobody covering 1st base" is an observation I received from another player and that's about it. I can't make up if the 1b was steps away, pitcher was sprinting towards first, etc.