NCAA Softball Umpires' Use Phone Call Rules Check on Retired Batter-Runner Interference Double Play
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- Umpires during a Loyola (Chicago) vs Drake University conducted a rules check via cell phone after a retired batter was hit by a catcher's throw in the 1st inning. Article: www.closecalls...
With none out and one on (R1), Drake's batter popped up a bunt, which was caught by Loyola's catcher, who then threw toward first base in an effort to retire the base runner. However, the catcher's throw hit the retired Drake batter-runner in the back, ultimately resulting in a delay as umpires consulted both a physical copy of the rules book and made a phone call to a supervisor or rules authority.
Although the play under the Official Baseball Rules would likely be deemed legal pursuant to OBR 6.01(a)(5) Comment ("If the batter or a runner continues to advance or returns to attempts to return to their last legally touched base after they have been put out, they shall not by that alone be considered as confusing, hindering, or impeding the fielders"), we note that softball has no such rule.
(Also, see www.closecalls... for what OBR 6.01(a)(5) Comment is referring to... even if a retired runner is hit by a thrown ball, that alone is not interference.)
Instead, NCAA Softball's definition for interference is "an act that denies a defensive player a reasonable opportunity to make a play (field/throw) anywhere on the playing field. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable."
Similarly, 12.17.3 states "An offensive player, who no longer has status (a retired member of the offense or a player who has scored), may not interfere with a defensive player making a play on an active runner."
What is your call?
I actually love the idea of letting the coach listen in on the phone call. Idk if it would be a good idea for the MLB or not but taking the umpire as "messenger" out and letting them hear the ruling directly from the source is a really good job by the umpires IMO.
Yes
I agree
How could you be upset with an ump who goes as far as to make a phone call to make sure the call is right? That’s amazing
If the book said it was correct why call someone ?
@@jprogers91 cuz like in every sport, the book leaves room for interpretation!
To be fair, I don’t see anyone upset about that in the video. They are upset st the situation, but I don’t see anyone bitching about the phone call. Welcome to the 21st century!
@Jack Tower That would be obstruction of batter by catcher. Also, if everyone including the batter advance at least one base it's ignored.
I agree that it's all theoretical until you see it, but it's critical to have a working knowledge of the rules. Knowing specific rules language allows you to confidently unravel plays like this.
@Jack Tower yeah, I agree. It's defined as obstruction (at least in NFHS), but calling it interference is perfectly fine.
NCAA softball allows umpires to go to the Rules Book, and if a protest is lodged, they can take it one step further and contact the NCAA National Rules Interpreter. Kudos to this crew for remaining calm and getting it right. A retired runner has no rights to be in the way of a live ball, especially since she decided not to run it out and clearly saw the catcher make the catch
What exactly was the runner supposed to do? By your interpretation, she has no viable option. If she stays put, she gets hit. If she walks back to her bench, the catcher takes a step left and drills her with the same result. If she goes out to the right, the catcher takes a step right, drills her, with the same result. There is no win here for the batter-runner on your interpretation. The catcher can always claim the runner was in the way and spike a ball into the batter-runner.
i mean you are taught to run till you hear foul or catch so if she just did that she would been better off than watching... but i pretty sure this can go both ways in other softball leauges depanding on umpires. and how you intruppit the rule
@@stephenhenley7452 Get out of the line. She's literally standing right in the way -- this is textbook interference against the throw -- they're both out.
If the rule is "A retired runner had no rights to be in the way of a thrown ball," ok fine, if that's the rule. But I'm not familiar with anything in any rule book that requires a batter-runner or runner to keep running after being put out, so everything you said after that is irrelevant and has no bearing on the call. There is no "especially" version of retired batter-runner/runner interference.
The batter was called out at the plate, she then interfered with the play at first... PERIOD! The ball is dead, and the runner is out. End of story.
How did the batter interfere with the catcher's throw to first? The act of just standing there less than a second after her bunt is caught CANNOT by itself by that act alone be seen as interference. She didn't change her path, didn't raise her hands or bat, she didn't run INTO THE PATH of the throw. If you call interference, you must articulate HOW she interfered with the play. The catcher was on her knees in an almost DIRECT line with the baseline. The batter had no other option.
The issue here is you’re looking at this from a common sense position and I agree. But according to ncaa rules that does not matter. Once the runner is out they must literally disappear or be subject to interference. It’s unrealistic but unfortunately is the rule. We should be suggesting the rule get changed verses how to circumvent it.
@@brianschulman2641 Yes, too many are thinking that because it was unintentional, interference shouldnt be called....if the batter-runner didnt look back(why look back?) and continued onto first base the ball probably wouldnt have hit her...
The phone call is probably going either Vickie Van Kleeck, NCAA Secretary-Rules Book Editor or Craig Hyde, NCAA Softball National Coordinator of Umpires.
To me it's the same as hitting a retired runner coming into 2nd on a double play. If there's no opportunity to get out of the way and no intent on the part of the runner, I am not calling a subsequent out.
Seems the batter not running it out is making this more unusual and more complicated to apply rules. Had the batter not stopped to see if the ball was caught and instead just ran hard to first and been hit in the back with the thrown ball, more people would be inclined to call it a live ball with no interference - especially if she was on the chalk line.
Actually if she had continued to run and was hit in the back on the chalk she would definitely be out as she would not be running in the runner's lane. I think the point of contention here was that she was hit in the back before the runner's lane begins.
@@rj2k14 According to NCAA Softball rules, the chalk (of the foul line) is part of the runners lane. So if she had reached the runners lane and was on the chalk she would be considered in the runners lane.
This batter-runner was retired on the catch. Running it out or not running it out is irrelevant. A retired runner that is in the way of a play on another runner is guilty of retired runner interference.
No way this should be interference. If that's the case, let's just start throwing the ball at retired runners.
Agreed...runner on base and you get a strike out? Just drill the batter in the back, and it's a double play. Not gonna get the batter/runner on a double play ground ball? Easy, after the turn at 2B just drill the baserunner from 1B, voila...two outs. Just a calamity waiting to happen. There is no way this is interference, and in real baseball would not be.
@@redphantom2104 If the runner interferes with a legitimate attempt at a throw to 1B. The fielder can't just toss the ball into the runner who just slid into 2B for an automatic out at 1B, otherwise it'd be impossible to *not* get a double play on every force out at 2B. Of course, I was also being facetious in my replay, if that wasn't obvious.
@@redphantom2104 I never mentioned a runner at 3B in my scenario, and your response makes absolutely no sense in any context. It's mostly just inane babbling. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't catch the joke. But hey, you understood it the best you could. Bless your heart.
@@mph7282 this wasn't not baseball, real or otherwise
I think this is a great way to discuss seldom used rules no pointing no yelling.
I'm not sure what they expect her to do.. I would have called no interference, dead ball, runner back to 1st, and 1 out.
If you don’t call interference in what grounds do you kill the ball? I am not a experienced softball umpire that is why I am asking, to kill a live ball there has to be a reason to kill it. Thanks.
This is the only proper call in this instance
@@nathangarciamuro Play dead, your dumbass catcher just donked a person in the back. Get the player some ice and tell the catcher to not be an idiot when throwing
A fielder's throw hitting a runner does not kill the play. It's a live ball and runners advance at their own risk. Baseball 101. You learn this in Little League.
@@mph7282 not totally true there is the line going to first that the runner has to be in foul territory to avoid interference and I’m wondering if that’s why they called it that way.
I don't umpire softball but this seems like a very good training rules video.
My initial thoughts is what the commentators eventually said-it’s a dead ball just like on a drop third strike when the ball bounces off the catcher onto the batter-runner play stops and batter isnout
Here’s my question. If this is interference, then what’s to stop the catcher from deliberately hitting the retired batter, and then claiming interference for an easy double play?
Certainly the retired batter did nothing deliberate to interfere. She didn’t stick an arm or leg out to contact the ball. She obviously doesn’t have time to vacate the area, and how is she to know whether the catcher is going to throw “inside” or “outside” - something that catchers and first base fielders should be practicing in case of plays like this near home plate.
But then, I never worked softball, just baseball, and in an era before replays and cell phones existed. We were on our own.
The wording...
It has to be “reasonable”
Answer to your question: Nothing. In fact, in runner's lane situations, some fielders are actually instructed to do this to try to get the batter out for running outside the lane.
I feel your pain, but in the end, you don't need a deliberate action in order for interference to be called. Sometimes, being in the wrong place at the wrong time(or the right place at the wrong time) comes back to bite ya. Get the bunt down, thats the moral of the story
@@mptr1783 Well, you are right about the lost art of bunting, but I don’t see this as interference, at least in baseball. I was never a softball umpire. As to intent, it’s important in this case because we aren’t talking about being hit by a BATTED ball, but by a THROWN ball, and that’s a critical distinction. If a runner is hit by a BATTED ball in fair territory, the runner is out, ball is dead, no advance by runners. That’s the rule regardless of intent or accident. It’s why base runners on third are, or should be, taught to take their lead in foul territory. If they are hit by a foul ball, it’s just a foul ball. But if they are in fair territory, and are hit by a BATTED ball, they are out. The same is true of other runners, though runners on first and second don’t have the option of taking a lead in foul territory- they are in fair territory even standing on the base.
But this case wasn’t about a batted ball, but a THROWN ball. The retired batter-runner hadn’t even gotten close to that lane along the baseline to first. She also wasn’t completely in fair territory, and she did nothing intentional to interfere with the catcher’s throw to first. That’s NOT interference, at least in baseball.
Just as it’s important to learn how to bunt, by this level (NCAA) catchers and first basemen should have learned how to coordinate a throw from home to first. Usually, the catcher will shout “inside” or “outside” to let the first baseman know on which side of the batter-runner the catcher intends to throw on. That’s how defensive players should be communicating with each other, and thus avoiding the batter-runner. Of course, this was a very quick play, with the catcher fielding that bunt.
Of course, any Red Sox fan who was around for the 1975 World Series could tell you about the non interference call when Cincinnati’s Ed Armbrister bunted the ball, and got tangled up with Sox catcher Carlton Fisk, who was attempting to field the bunt, and wound up with an errant throw to second, which wound up in center field, and the Sox losing that game. This softball batter did not hinder the catcher from fielding the ball, the catcher caught it cleanly. In Armbrister’s case, he DID hinder the catcher’s attempt to field the ball, the two were in physical contact. Yet in this video the batter-runner was ruled as interfering, yet Armbrister was not ruled as having interfered with the play, in a World Series game deciding play.
@@michaelfalkner1186 I understand, but in this case the batter was already retired. My point is that in matters of accidental contact between runner or batter-runner and the ball, there’s a huge difference between being hit by a BATTED ball (if in fair territory, regardless of intent, runner is immediately out, dead ball, no advance), and a THROWN ball, in which case intent is important.
I mentioned it in another reply, but it bears repeating. In the 1975 World Series between the Boston Red Sox and the Cincinnati Reds, any Boston fan who was alive then remembers distinctly the famous Ed Armbrister non interference call. Reds batter Ed Armbrister, who batted right, bunted the ball, which didn’t move very far from home plate, where Sox catcher Carlton Fisk was moving forward to field the bunt, while Armbrister was trying to move across the plate to run toward first. The two collided, and got entangled, and it definitely hindered Fisk’s attempt to field the ball, and throw down to second. As a result, the errant throw wound up in center field, and the Sox lost the game. But no interference was called, as it was essentially ruled, to use a football term, incidental contact.
Now we’re talking about two similar, but distinct sports, in two different eras, with rules changes as part of the milieu. Given that, if this retired batter was ruled to have interfered with the throw, then certainly Armbrister should have been out for interference. The batter here didn’t impede the catcher’s effort to catch the ball at all. The two never made contact with each other. For one thing, the fact that she batted left made it much easier to catch that bunt.
I just don’t see how this call here should be interference, but then this is softball, and I was strictly in baseball. It’s also NCAA, so there are even differences in rules between NCAA and MLB even in baseball. I can only go by what I know, and what I saw. On well-coached teams even at the high school level, catchers in such situations are taught to shout to the first baseman, “inside” or “outside”, indicating which side of the batter-runner he intends to throw.
The catcher had no chance of getting the runner out at first because the batter runner just retired was still on the field. If you expect a retired player to miraculously disappear, then you can call interference. The runner on first should get second because of the poor judgement of the catcher. If the catcher had made an effort to have a good throwing angle, maybe you could call interference, but you can't expect to make a throw through a player. If the rules say this is interference they are wrong and need to be changed.
As a softball and baseball umpire this is one of those things that can really screw with you when you cross over games. Softball regardless we have a double play here. The runner closest to home plate is going to be ruled out for interference on the batter/runner. I don't like this rule at all.... it's almost as bad as the look back rule or the leaving early your out rule.
I totally agree. I dislike too but the rule makes sense in many other scenarios.
Interesting that you should mention leaving early since it appears that the runner actually left prior to the bunt.
@@wolfgangvonscheisskopf545 she can leave prior to the bunt as long as the pitcher has released the ball.
In softball this type of situation is not about what the runner did. What the runner did only matters when determining intentional interference. In this case it only matters where the retired runner was and whether it interfered with a play. Also, in softball you can't just return the runner to first without interference. (If it's not interference, it's a live ball and the runner can advance. If it's interference, the ball is dead and the runner is either out - if no other runners are on - or returned to first.)
I still don’t know what they called, a double play based on an interference or something else? Thanks.
yes, they called the runner out on 1st base(technically the "runner closest to home", meaning a double play
The batter became a runner when she popped up the bunt. She was then put out on the catch, and therefore became a "retired runner" with no status as a runner. She inadvertently interfered with the catcher's attempt make a play on R1 (just her bad luck). By rule, the penalty for retired runner interference is the runner closest to home is declared out. In this case the runner closest to home was R1.
Beside the weird circumstances, what a difference between this crew and the „3-run-foul-ball“-crew in terms of game management.
uh, yeah. HS crew vs college crew.
Dead ball runner closer to home is out - interference by a retired runner
I think the call is correct. I'm not sure if it matters, but it did appear the batter looked over her shoulder at the catcher as the ball was being thrown & could have made a move to get out of the way but failed to do so.
By calling R1 out, the umps are penalizing a poorly executed bunt attempt by B1 & rewarding a good defensive effort by F2. Whatever the nuances of the rules, rewarding the defense with a double play is rewarding good fundamental softball & penalizing fundamentally poor execution by the offense.
@@benjim3194, if the retired batter is interfering with the catcher's ability to make a throw to 1st base to put out another runner, the other runner should be called out.
@@benjim3194, she could start returning to her team's bench once she's out. That would at least get her out of the way of a catcher's throw to 1st.
Why wasn't the batter hustling out of the box afterwards tho? Don't look back. Just run to first.
I have nothing. She is not outside of the running lane (basically where she should be running after hitting the ball).
She’s already out. The runner’s lane has nothing to do with this play.
I know there is no running lane there. The idea is this... when the pop fly is caught, she does not just instantly disappear. She did not deviate to interfere. I still have nothing. Good umpires look at the intent of the rules and decipher the "grey area". Not everything is black and white. Still say I have nothing.
@@ILOVEUMPS Be careful! Your rationale is interjecting stuff that is not in the retired runner rule. You must follow what the rule's language says. If the rule intended to make accommodation for the runner not being able to instantly disappear, it would address that. A retired runner has no status and must not get in the way of a play. If she is in the way, she is interfering. This IS black and white and that is why the ruling was made as it was after several NCAA umpires took the time to confer.
I''m confused- how does the obstruction at third in the 2013 WS relate to interference by a retired BR in this clip here??
this clip isnt' obstruction .........
@@jametz66 I never said it was. My question was to Gil what this interference clip has to do with the 2013 WS. I don't see how they are related at all.
@@TR_145 ....Tyler, you called it an 'obstruction clip' (this one) ..and it's not, ..it's an interference clip. Sorry, just giving you a little $h1t ;)
@@jametz66 damn it! Thanks. fixed
@@TR_145 LOL! :)
I used to umpire youth baseball. When it's unclear what the rulebook really is in a situation, we were taught to make a decision that makes the most sense. In this case, the batter (now out because the catcher caught the bunt attempt) did not intentionally interfere with the catcher's throw to first and was, in fact, in a reasonable position (on the chalk line, heading towards first base) if the bunt had been successful. Further, if the throw had been good to first, it's still questionable if the runner would have gotten back safely or not. Taking all that into consideration, I would have ruled the ball dead when it hit the former batter, put the runner back on first, and continue the game. And, importantly, I would call both managers/coaches onto the field and explain my ruling .
That's what makes the most sense to me. I don't know the rules as well as an umpire, but that would be fair.
I'm not convinced the former batter didn't block the catchers throwing path intentionally. These girls are smart. They're getting a college education and they've been playing the sport for years.
It is important to know the rules! The retired runner rules in NCAA and NFHS are very simple and easy to understand unless one reads more than is there. Your reasoning shows you do not know the rules that apply in softball. This umpire crew made the correct call.
Correct call by the rules, but at some point in time, it is one where the batter runner could do nothing and is against the spirit of the game.
I feel like the crew chief should make a call based on their own discretion and then consult the head ump after the game and release an update on what the rule would be going forward
@@davej3781 cant change past games output. Protest all you want you wont be winning the ship
@@TheRTrizzy if a protest is upheld(meaning the ruling body decides that the rule was misapplied), the game would be resumed from the point of the protested action.
@@mikeinhubcity7433 thats not the rule in any league I've ever played in.
@@TheRTrizzy Pinetar Game from 1983 is the most famous upheld protest.
@@mikeinhubcity7433 yea i know what a protest is. the rule wasnt overturned.
Part of what could be addressed in this is the running lane, which handles 'any throw coming from the home plate area' on a live runner, however, this BR never made it that far. So, as a 'retired' runner, if they denied the defense a reasonable opportunity to 'make a play', then she is out. If she was standing still in the box, she can not be expected to disappear as mentioned. She was however, out of the box on the way to 1st base, so she's now liable for this interference.
Regarding the phone call, we can call the 'NCAA rules interpreter' for instances like this so we can eliminate the protest on the field.
According to the rules even if she stayed in the box she be out as a retired player.
No she cannot be "expected to disappear". But that thought is irrelevant because it is not addressed in the rule. It makes no difference whether she is standing in the box or running up the line... retired is retired. Read the rule and follow the language as written. Any umpire who interjects stuff that the rule does not say is guilty of improperly changing the rule.
I would lean more towards they made the correct call simply because the BR turned around and looked back and saw she made a catch along with a quick out mechanic. In my opinion.
this definitely should not be interference, and the softball rules should update the rulebook to clarify
- a batter-runner typically does not know right away if they are out or safe as they are sprinting to 1st base, so you are expecting them to be listening to the umpire for an "out" call and dive out of the baseline? (the video is obviously a rare case of the batter turning around and watching the play)
- if this is a precedent ruling, then every single double play attempt after you get the runner out at 2nd on the force play, you just throw the ball at the them.. boom.. easy double play lol
It's a double play in softball. She headed down first base line and stood there in softball that is interference.
So in softball, a batter-runner is REQUIRED to run to first base? And if they don't follow that rule, they will be called out? She didn't run into the path of the ball. She stopped and the catcher threw the ball into her back. Can you cite the rule reference?
Hey can y’all look at the bunt in T2 of the Angels/Astros game tonight where the batter stepped out of the box behind the plate and there was a no call?
Baseball and softball play by under different rules
"Might be a different ballgame..." Haha.
I have to agree with the letting the coach hear it from the rules interp directly takes away a major argument. (probably keeps him in the game too).. but as someone who does softball at the Fed/USSSA levels often.. Sadly, in this case, the retired runner is expected to get out of the way.. a batter in the box will still get a bit of protection but once you leave the box (with good reason here) and are out.. get out of the way.. you get much love.. baseball gives you much more love on this type of play. One thing to note, most non-NCAA are pretty consistant these days.. but there are many differences between them and NCAA... like the fact that circle violations are a delayed dead ball.. among many others. (I've heard of a few.. as I don't work NCAA, I don't know most of them.)
Bottom of the first and they are protesting the call. a 10-25 team and a 15-27 team. Just wow by these coaches. Wow
I can't say it would be interference. If she didn't turn around and see the ball being caught, and kept running and the ball hits her, she wouldn't even know that she was already out. She's not where she shouldn't be, but man, I don't know.
She did know, because she stopped running. If she would have kept running, that would imply she did not know the ball status, and interference would probably have not been ruled in this case.
@@ocbroadband interference has nothing to do with intent.
@@rj2k14 It does in baseball, that's where the confusion comes from. I gave up softball years ago to work baseball because of some of the ridiculous rules.
The catcher caught the ball in the air for an out. She then tried to throw the ball from a odd position causing her to hit the runner. The ball should be alive and runners can advance at their own riskier it doesn’t go out of play. If out of play he runner would be at third base. My baseball opinion. Don’t know every softball rule.
A retired batter-runner has no protection in a situation where there is a subsequent play in which that player is determined to have interfered with its outcome. This applies to that player's equipment, verbal or physical interference in a subsequent play after they are ruled out as a hitter or base runner. The rule calls for the most severe punishment, dead ball, no advance by any other runner, with the runner closest to home declared out. This is a rare call. And the circumstances of its enforcement will cause controversy in as much as intention is not an issue with how it is applied.
In the above example, the retired batter-runner was not seeking to block the catcher's throw to first to catch the runner there before she legally retouched. But the throw was obstructed by the BR. The only other way for the catcher to complete a DP at first was to move out of the catcher's box and get better angled throw to first, probably too late to make that play. The rule makes no allowance for time and space. It only calls for a batter-runner to avoid preventing the defense from doing so and being subject to the penalty. In other games, this ruling might go a different way. This crew went the distance to get it right even to the point of asking outside help in applying the rule. That should always be the ultimate goal to ensure game fairness.
This just keeps getting better and better lol.
Hi everybody. 1rst, MLB: walking batter blocks the catcher trying to grab a drop strike 3.
This situation, runner ran and received a thrown ball.
This is not an interference. The MLB situation we really can see batter's walking in front catcher and blocking him. In this siuation, batter just stopped run as she see she's out, and did'nt move and stayed there, catcher throw direct on her. Similar situation , double play situation, R1 stop running when SS touched 2nd base and throw to 1rst, but hit R1. R1 is where he's supposed to be, SS should take a step aside to avoid R1. Catcher should take a step aside. BR did'nt makke any move and she's where she's suppose to be. On a thrown ball, umpires must questioned:
1. Is runner where is suppose to be?
2. Doe's he made a move that block the throw?
The answer here are YES she's where she have to be, and NO she made any move.
The right call is "ball in play", everything is good.
She was out and not entitled to walk down the 1st base line. Thus, she was interfering with the throw to 1st base.
No call
Nice variety of opinions on this knotty play. If it was my call, the key would be that the batter-runner saw the catch, knew she was out, and then *just... stopped... dead*. That was a voluntary act. It left her in the path of a throw to first base, where there was a reasonable chance to put out R1. The B-R was neither clueless as to what was happening, nor helpless to avoid interference. I have interference after being put out, runner at first is also out.
Had she peeled off to the right, where no reasonable play is possible, she would have been attempting to avoid interference with any subsequent play.
Intent doesn't apply. She either interfered or she didn't.
@@jimsweeney3510 I am not arguing that she intended to interfere. (I could, but choose not to.) More that the retired B-R put herself at risk for an interference call.
The immediately applicable rule (12.17.3.1) states, "An offensive player, who no longer has status (a retired member of the offense or a player who has scored), may not interfere with a defensive player making a play on an active runner." A note from earlier in section on interference states, "A runner hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference." To my mind, the same would apply to a retired runner or batter-runner.
The questions (for me) in deciding whether to call interference are, "Was the throw errant, or reasonably accurate?" and "Did the retired batter-runner do something that put her in the line of fire for a thrown ball?"
Since the throw looked good to me, and the retired B-R chose not to leave the area where a throw to 1st might hit her, I have interference.
@@milwaukeejt You cite the applicable rule. No where does it state she "intended to, made a voluntary act, put herself at risk or that she knows she was out...." All it states is that she may not interfere. That's the point I'm making. When discussing with coaches we're taught to use the language in the rule book. When you raise intent, she knew......the coach would think that you don't understand the rule. I know this is a technical point, you would have got the call right. Good on you. But look at how many people think that what the batter did or knew matters. That's why I made the reply to you that I did.
@@jimsweeney3510 I am describing my thought process in deciding. I am also responding to the notion raised by some that the batter-runner was helpless: "Where's she supposed to go?", "Is she supposed to disappear?", etc. The actions that indicate intent are not required by the rule, but they remove any possible doubt from my mind.
@@milwaukeejt totally agree with you and great thought process. If the batter-runner stopped running, which she did because she saw the catch and knew she was out, then you should deduce that she shouldve dropped, peeled off, etc to get out of the way of a possible throw to 1st..............which was the ONLY play left on the field to be made
I would treat it as if the throw ball hit an on deck batter "accidentally " and call the ball dead and return the runner to first.
So you’d make up your own rule because you don’t agree with the rule book. That is not what an umpire does. You can’t chose which rules to enforce.
This gets the award for the dumbest comment! 😂😂
In my opinion, if the retired runner was in foul territory when she was hit with the thrown ball, I would have ruled NOT a double play.
The batter runner was out. She interfered. Apply the rule. The runner closest to home is declared out. There is no other rule that applies to this situation. It does appear to be a harsh ruling, but it is what it is. If you can cite a rule that says if a retired runner is in foul territory they cannot interfere with a play I'll listen. Our own opinions don't apply here. Take for instance, if there was a runner on third on this play. She would be declared out even if the throw was going to first. In my opinion I don't like that rule I think the runner at first should be declared out. But I can't make that call. All i can do is apply the rule as is.
Are you trying to state that if she was in "foul" territory when hit with F2's throw, that the throw would not have been a "quality" throw to F3, and thus you don't have INT? If so, then you also need to argue that if she was in "fair" territory that the throw would have been equally poor and you would call INT also. Is this correct?
I would have called dead ball all runners return to last base occupied, cause I’m a baseball umpire lol,,, I do softball but wow this side has great unusual calls I’ve never seen before lol, been doing this 25 yrs
don't know but common sense says the batter has the right to run in the baselines. so i think you would have to couple the baseline runner rule in that.
i do not believe this is interference as there was no reasonable time for the out runner to get out of the way nor was the runner out of the baseline. if this would be ruled interference then we could start seeing catchers just throwing the ball at the runner and making a quick double play when it shouldnt be.
I umpire softball 🥎 almost exclusively
I would NOT have interference here but ncaa does have some differences over NFHS USA etc
She is a retired batter-runner and thus must leave the field of play. She unintentionally interfered thus the batter closest to home is out
You have to give her reasonable time to leave the field of play.
Robert Jones No, you don’t...not in softball rules you don’t...
Bad call IMO that will lead to intentional abuse. The catcher should not have the right to make a throw from any place they desire and then try to say they were interfered with. What is next, the catcher throws sidearm or steps to their right to intentionally hit the batter? If she had not been on her knees a simple shuffle step would have cleared the batters lane and retired the runner.
Change the rule then. It’s not a bad call it’s a bad rule. Totally different.
@@brianschulman2641 Change what rule? There is no cited rule.
Runner at 1 is out !
one of those calls i believe could go either way.
I had this exact same play about 7-8 years ago in a 14U USA Softball game. When my partner on the plate didn't make a call I pointed at the BR who was hit, said that's a retired runner, pointed at the runner on 1B & called her out. Ended the inning. It was posted in our group and probably set a record for the number of responses weighing in on the call & rule. We had people from all over the state of NJ & country offering thoughts. One of my college assignors stated there was no way that was interference - in NCAA. College has a standard that I would say is more lenient than USA SB but in both I wouldn't change my call.
Later that year I attended my 3rd USA Nat'l Umpire School and my NJ UIC as well as 4 of the national staff all said I missed it. I simply asked them to explain the retired runner part of this [asked the NCAA assignor too]. 8 years later none of them have answered that question! When I say exact same play, I mean that. The BR popped up a bunt while the runner was stealing so R1 was 3/4 of the way to 2B, unlike this R1. The BR ran towards 1B, the pop up was higher so she got maybe 1/3 of the way there. BUT - like the video, she LOOKED BACK AND SAW THE CATCHER MAKE THE PLAY!! Both her and this one in the video KNEW they were out! I'm not saying they must disappear nor did they necessarily do anything wrong. HOWEVER, the rule for INT is generally intentional or unintentional. By the rule these were both INT.
MLB is the only rule set that would say this is not INT and I don't agree with the commentator on that point. "that alone is not INT" does not mean that it is NOT interference, just that it's not automatic
Well stated! Many umpires make themselves look very bad when they go by reasoning that does not exist in the language of the rules!
I wouldnt call it a double play.. BR out from pop up. she is on the line and not intentionally blocking and hasnt reached the runners lane area when hit.. i would call it the same as when a catcher hitting a the BR in the runners lane area while going to first.. live ball
Your call would be dead wrong. Nothing you state is in the retired runner rule! The runner's lane is irrelevant here.
NCAA softball rules were written by the coaches and contain some of the dumbest rules around. The absolute dumbest rule they had when they first wrote their book was that if batter squared to bunt they had to pull the bat back if they were not going to attempt a bunt or else the umpire was REQUIRED to call the pitch a strike, no matter where the pitch was. The pitch could have sailed 4 feet over the batter's head and ended up against the backstop, but the umpire had to call it a strike. There's no telling what kind of rule they have in place for this.
Maybe you could clarify about your example of the bunting rule...the way it is written sounds like the general interpretation of bunting now...
@@rickhaavisto9023 Just imagine a batter squared to bunt a plain sacrifice bunt. The NCAA softball rule book as originally written required the batter to pull their bat AWAY from the pitch, otherwise the umpire was required to call it a strike. The batter had to make an attempt to NOT bunt the ball instead of making a positive attempt to actually bunt the ball. We're not talking about the left handed drag bunters who are trying to get on base. We're talking about an old fashioned sacrifice bunt. I don't know if it is still that way. My knees forced me to hang up the mask 15 years ago.
I think it's bad form to criticize the coaches for what you consider "dumb rules". As a former NCAA Coach who served on the Rules Committee, I can tell you the process of creating, authoring, and implementing rules is done so with great care by coaches who are experienced, often times more so than the umpires, and the coaches bring the only empirical perspective throughout the entire year as it is their job to know and understand the rules, lest they be noncompetitive and out of a job quickly if they do not.
It stands to reason that coaches would be the most influential in rules composition but that doesn't mean they're always right. I also know there are a great many umpires who serve on various committees in conjunction with coaches to assist when necessary.
However, if rules are not written by the most experienced members of the game who are the ones whose jobs are dependent upon wins and losses, then who should write them? There is literally nobody else who has the knowledge, skill, and experience to serve on those committees.
And no, coaches do not always get it right. They also sometimes fail to forecast the unintended consequences of new rules, interpretations, and augmented portions of particular rules.
What is important, and I assure you, taken quite seriously by every coach on the committee, is the process by which rule proposals are implemented. Once rules come out of committee, they are then voted on by the rest of the coaches inside their respective Division. It's not as if the Rules Committee arbitrarily writes rules and everyone else just has to accept it. Rather, every coach is allowed input once a rule has been proposed and therefore creates an ownership of any rule within the book.
Your example of the bunting dilemma is something that I can attest is going to be discussed almost annually during Committee Meetings. The attempts to simplify the rule by allowing a hitter to leave their bat in the zone while squaring to bunt has been "accordion" like, in that it has changed from one to another several times. It used to be you had to remove the bat from the zone or the batter would be assessed a strike. Then it moved to the batter must have made an attempt to bunt the ball and the judgment was left to the umpire, but if the bat was in the zone without a judged attempt, then a strike call was inconsequential to bat placement. But then, as it goes, this confused many coaches and umpires because an (unnecessary) argument was very likely to result from BOTH the opposing coaches depending upon which way the umpire judged the hitter's intent.
Both sides of the argument have merit. A batter should not be penalized for not attempting to bunt a ball but a pitcher should not be penalized for a batter's bat in the zone, without contact, and being assessed a ball (if the ball in fact, does not pass through strike zone, thereby rendering the bat in the zone moot as it was a strike anyway). The trick is any movement of a batter could be determined to be an attempt if the bat is left in the zone.
In my opinion, this is actually not a rules problem, it's a coaching problem. If you can't teach your hitters to simply remove the bat from the zone if they choose not to offer a bunt attempt, a highly simple technique of taking the bathead to the hitter's shoulder, then this should be on the player and the coach rather than legislated by rules and therefore another judgment left to the umpire.
This is the conflict of where the rules delineate from interpretation and begin the slippery slope of umpires making decisions based on poor fundamental technique. This is the coach's job, to identify and teach fundamentals, not the umpires, and this needs to be made clear to limit any possible confusion where rules are applied vs. fundamentals learned.
No interference unless intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.
Wrong!
8.6.16 retired runner struck by B2 throw is interference, in nfhs.
Wondering if the batter/runner was in foul territory it would of just been a live ball but where she was in fair territory they called it interference.
According to ncaa rules where she was is irrelevant. Once she’s out she must literally disappear. I don’t agree but I don’t make the rules. I’ve only enforced this rule once.
Softball catchers are trained to hit the runner. Especially a retired runner
Never heard of being able to phone a friend during a game
I was going to use the same Who Wants to be a Millionaire "phone a friend" reference. I guess the next option would be to "ask the audience" LOL
I think what bothers me most is the batter is called out, and then Eeyore’s her way into the field of play and back toward her dugout. Doesn’t even stay engaged enough to watch the action happening on the field
did you play baseball? the batter did what ANY batter would do .... start running to first and glance back to see what happened .... (roll eyes)
"Eeyore's Her way..." 🤣
Gonna have to Borrow THAT ONE Brotha! LMAO.
... Just picturing Eeyore now... 'nobody loves me... Nobody cares..." (All sad) 😂
@@jametz66 I did play baseball and I coach it now. I try to keep our players engaged in the game and certainly out of the way once they are no longer a part of the play.
Maybe your Fauci face mask got in the way. Lol
6.01(a)(5) would cover someone who is advancing or returning, but I don't think it would cover someone sitting there like a potted plant.
I'm torn on this one. I feel that the rules should change to reflect common sense a little better. I still remember the play with the Red Sox and Yankees where the retired 1st base runner ran and slid back into 1st base on a ground ball blocking a double play because they had already tagged second. I think that should be clear interference. I feel that the player should make a reasonable effort to avoid interfering and that as long as they are acting naturally, they shouldn't be penalized. With Heyward walking in front of home plate, he is making a physical motion that blocks the fielder that is not included in either his swing or running to a base. While this softball runner didn't make any effort to get out of the way of the throw, it was natural for her to run towards 1st. Even though she looks back and sees that she's out, and once she knows that, she could have peeled off to foul territory instead of just standing, if she hadn't been looking over her shoulder she would have kept running on the foul line to 1st not knowing she's out, and I think she would have been justified. I don't know how sotfball applies these rules, but apparently harsher than MLB where the Red Sox yankees play is allowed. I feel like the rules should be a balance between the two, because I think this should have not been an out, the heyward one should be an out, and the red sox yankees one should be an out.
My call is pretty simple: player on bases retakes first, batter is out, play on. It's on the catcher to make a good throw which that wasn't, you cannot call a throw like that as 'interference' for reasons I shouldn't have to describe.
It’s either interference or not. If it is, both are out. If it isn’t, batter out runner on second. I don’t think it is, or every catcher everywhere would be plastering runners claiming interference.
The worst umpires are the ones who make up their own rules. The rationale stated here does not exist in the retired runner rule!
This rule makes 0 sense to me.
You have to be Solomon to ref these sports. I'm assuming this isn't a new rule when I say this, but I can't believe they haven't made this less subjective. The way the rule was interpreted here, it could easily lead to exploitation. You can't regulate the subjective nature of rules completely out of sports, but that should always be the goal imo. This one seems like low hanging fruit.
When I first saw it my gut said pretty much what they finally ruled. Sucks to be that batter but she did indeed take away a chance to put out the runner. Its like when a fielder accidentally obstructs the runner when going for a thrown ball or a runner interferes with fielder on a batted ball. They are just doing their job nut its still a rule.
Agreed but in regards to “nuts it still a rule” I disagree with. If you remove that rule you open the flood gates to interference by a runner knowing it’s legal.
Runner is out: NCAA softball rules 20-21
12.17.3 Interference by a Retired Member of the Offense, Offensive Team
Personnel or Loose Offensive Equipment
-12.17.3.1 An offensive player, who no longer has status (a retired member of
the offense or a player who has scored), may not interfere with a defensive
player making a play on an active runner�
-12.17.3.2 Once the pitch has crossed home plate, offensive team personnel
may not interfere with a fielder who has a reasonable chance to make a
play on a thrown or pitched ball within the field of play�
--EFFECT-(12.17.3.1 and 12.17.3.2)-The ball is dead, and the runner
closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared
out. Each base runner must return to the last base legally touched at
the time of the interference, unless forced to advance. Exception: If the
batter struck out and is still in the batter’s box when she interferes with
the catcher’s attempt to throw out a base runner, the base runner being
played on, not the runner closest to home plate, is out.
Interference is an act. What act was taken by the BR here, other than existing?
@@terryhall5251 12.17 reads as: "Interference is an act that denies a defensive player a reasonable opportunity
to make a play (field/throw) anywhere on the playing field. "The reasonable part is subjective.
@@mikestermike The catcher had a perfectly reasonable opportunity to throw the ball. She just chose to throw it directly at the batter-runner. In my opinion the batter didn't have nearly enough time to react to being out, and also wasn't even looking when the ball was thrown. So she had no way to interfere with the throw. Just like in a run-down situation, and someone throws the ball and it hits the runner. It's your job as a fielder to throw around baserunners that are running in the base path.
@@terryhall5251 When she was hit she was not a batter runner . She was out on the catch at this point she is a retired runner . How you been ?
@@mikestermike "Interference is an act"..... she committed no act, other than standing in a legal position as a runner advancing to first.
Dead ball. Runner was returning to first at time of ball hitting retired batter. Base runner stays on first.
Not according to softball ncaa rules. You’re thinking baseball rules.
what happen to common sense, judgement? could she throw out runner from her knees with nothing on the throw? i say no. no int.
you must not watch much NCAA Softball. Most catchers throw runners out from their knees all the time
Did we have a championship title on the line or what? gezzz
So... if it is a championship game getting it right matters, but any other game does not matter??? 😵💫
Out by the actual rules. But the rules are stupid. Basically the catcher can just throw at the retired batter to get a double play.
She was throwing to first base.
@@63076topher yes, but also knowing that the double play is automatic if she hits the retired batter. The rule makes no sense, it's not as if you can expect the retired batter to just cease to exist as if Thanos snaped his fingers.
@@markthompson2874 She could keep running and not be in the way she say it when she looked over her shoulder.
@@63076topher she'd have still been out if hit. We're talking about a type of rule that's intended to punish the offense because they did something wrong. In this case. The rule gives her no reasonable way to avoid this type of result.
@@markthompson2874 The offense did do something wrong she got in the way of the throw by standing in the middle of the lane she keeps running the throw might not hit her.
I don't care who you are. Do not pull out your phone to get help with a ruling on the field. Make the call and the offended team protest. Also that's not a double play but softball might be different
In NCAA softball, thats what theyre supposed to do. And, it wasnt the umpires cell phone, most likely the coach's phone. Umpires get an A+ for doing what the NCAA required them to do
These umpires absolutely did the right thing. And they got the call correct!
That was actually breathing interference on the cancer cloth.
Stop referring to baseball rules, please.
@@davej3781 then stick to baseball and stop screwing up softball rules.
Poor umpire showing . Bring the rule book out to make a call on a play they don't know how to rule on. Read the rule don't understand it then have to call someone who they think knows !
What?
I’d much prefer bringing the rule book out on a play they “don’t know how to rule on”
Would you prefer they guess? Or flip a coin? What would be a better solution?
Anytime a retired runner interferes in any way, the player being played upon is out. Simple.
@ Brian Landis that's a retired batter not a retired runner. Retired runner interference is runner closest to home is out.
@@rj2k14 a retired player.
No. Let's take it a little further. Let say there are runners on first and third. In this exact play, the ultimate ruling is that the retired batter had interfered with the catcher's throw to first (I disagree but that is not my point). The PENALTY (in baseball) is to call the runner CLOSEST to home out, so it would be R3. Keep R1 as she cannot advance AT ALL on an INT call, regardless of where the ball ended up (fair, foul or DBT). Your statement of "the player being played upon is out" does not coincide with baseball rules, and probably does not with softball, but I not nearly familiar with softball rules.
The reason for this "harsher" penalty in the ruling is so that a team that violates the rule loses the chance for R3 still to score on the next pitch/play (assuming the inning hasn't ended). Another example: no outs, R3, R2 and the batter fails to bunt the ball on an attempted safety squeeze. F2 attempts a backdoor pick on R2 but is interfered with by the batter on his throw and the ball sails into centerfield. Call/enforce the batter's interference (out 1) and call R3 out for the batter's interference (out 2). Keep R2 at second (two outs recorded).
If R2 is called out ("the player being played upon"), then you still have R3 as a potential run who could score on a wild pitch, passed ball or balk.
Nope, double play.
The retired batter/runner is to leave the field of play by the best possible route as to not interfere with any other play. In this case the retired batter /runner just stands on the foul line obstructing any potential play at 1st. So yes I would call interface on the batte/r runner double play.
excellent post!
NCAA Softball rule: 12.17.3.1 An offensive player, who no longer has status (a retired member of the offense or a player who has scored), may not interfere with a defensive player making a play on an active runner.
EFFECT-(12.17.3.1 and 12.17.3.2)-The ball is dead, and the runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Each base runner must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference, unless forced to advance.
I like it as a no call
End of the day catcher shouldn't have thrown the ball.
lol why? She got a double play out of it
Dead ball
no interference!
This is why I ran away from Softball...
because OBR is any better????
@@jordanissport Unlike this channel I don't believe in OBR, I tend to focus on the actual books MLB, NCAA, NFHS...
@@davej3781 My point was using OBR is meaningless in say College, High School and lots of other leagues other than MLB
no call
Rules say differently.