Other Play in LLWS

T

TexasTransplant

Addicted to Softballfans
in the bottom of the 7th in this afternoon's LLWS game between Washington and Connecticut there were runners on 2B and 3B. Runner on 3B represents the potential winning run. Batter hit a sharp ground ball to the SS. SS sees runner from 3B break for home then hesitate; SS starts to run directly toward him, in the process colliding with the runner going from 2B to 3B. Although SS is holding the ball he never makes the tag, but does succeed in throwing the ball to the catcher who tags the runner from 3B. The announcers kept talking about interference (vs. obstruction), but the end result was an out was recorded and a runner ended up on 3B. Did anyone see this play that might be able to explain it?
 
ScootDog

ScootDog

Rather be surfing
I would say if the lead runner didn't get put out then he would have been with the interference......... But I've had some beers on an empty stomach!
 
C

Comp

Addicted to Softballfans
They called interference, and I wouldnt say the SS collided with the runner, the runner ran into the SS. The SS was checking the runner advancing from 3rd who had actually stopped in the basepath. The SS was advancing toward the lead runner to either tag him if he returned to 3rd, or throw home if he advanced to home and this was when the runner from 2nd ran into the SS. At that point it was interference, the ball is dead immediatly, the runner who committed the interference is out and all other runners return to last base touched at the time of the interference. It took a long time and a lot of discussion to get to it but ultimately the ruling was correct.
 
BretMan

BretMan

Addicted to Softballfans
I didn't see this play, so would have to defer to those who did. But...if R2 is just simply running in a line from second to third and F6 suddenly runs in front of him, crossing his path such that the collision was unexpected/unintentional/unavoidable, I'm leaning toward not calling interference here.

Like I said, I didn't see it. Maybe that's not exactly what happened. Maybe the collision was avoidable. Then you do have a case for interference.
 
I

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
IMO, that is not interference. The fielder was NOT in the act of fielding the ball, was NOT in the act of making a throw, the runner DID make an attempt to avoid the collision and the fielder DID initiate contact and if this was AA ball or even some JO travel, I might even believe the action by the fielder was meant to draw an INT call.
 
T

TexasTransplant

Addicted to Softballfans
irishmafia said:
IMO, that is not interference. The fielder was NOT in the act of fielding the ball, was NOT in the act of making a throw, the runner DID make an attempt to avoid the collision and the fielder DID initiate contact and if this was AA ball or even some JO travel, I might even believe the action by the fielder was meant to draw an INT call.
Click to expand...
This is the way I saw it. Actually, I wondered why it was obstruction on the SS.
 
Last edited:
FatBoy28

FatBoy28

SBF is a cruel Mistress
No call because no play was prevented from being made. No Interference because the SS still made the play on runner going home and no obstruction because the runner made it to 3B safely.
 
I

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
FatBoy28 said:
No call because no play was prevented from being made. No Interference because the SS still made the play on runner going home and no obstruction because the runner made it to 3B safely.
Click to expand...

Well, IMO, right call, wrong reasoning. That fact that the SS continued with a play that resulted in the runner being put out and the fact that the runner made it to 3rd safely after the contact are both irrelevant to the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top