OBS Call

[hit4power]

I think the blues got this correct...

R1 on 1B, no outs, playing Fed

BR hits a hard grounder to F6 who flips to F4 for the force at 2B. F4 spins and fires to F3 for the DP but her throw hits R1 in the helmet and flies into the outfield. As the ball flies into the outfield, F3 steps off of 1B towards the outfield and BR, rounding first, collides with her and goes down. Blues rule R1 out at 2B on the force, nothing on the throw that hits R1, and OBS on F3, awarding BR 2B. Needless to say, DC goes nuts, wanting an INT call on R1 and the out on BR as a result. Obviously, there's a HTBT component, but R1 never changed her line, was just pulling up after the force when she got konked by the throw. I think it was a good call....am I missing something?

[Comp]

No you arent missing anything. Based on description 100% correct call. Depending on where the ball went into outfield and speed of the runner obstructed, I could even see the runner being awarded 3rd base.

[MTR]

No you arent missing anything. Based on description 100% correct call. Depending on where the ball went into outfield and speed of the runner obstructed, I could even see the runner being awarded 3rd base.

Or back to 1st

[Comp]

No you arent missing anything. Based on description 100% correct call. Depending on where the ball went into outfield and speed of the runner obstructed, I could even see the runner being awarded 3rd base.

Or back to 1st

Yes, that is true, especially if she was very slow.

[LeftyHitter]

Doesn't NFHS rule 8-6-18 apply here which states "After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner." and since they revised the rule to take out "intentionally" it would be Interference since her being hit by the ball did keep the defensive player from making a play?

Now if it isn't interference, I can see where the batter runner could be awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on where the ball went, where the outfielder was, etc.

If it's not interference, I'm going to tell players to stay standing up, in the baseline (if they've got the guts to take one for the team).

[MTR]

Doesn't NFHS rule 8-6-18 apply here which states "After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner." and since they revised the rule to take out "intentionally" it would be Interference since her being hit by the ball did keep the defensive player from making a play?

What was the act of interference? The runner has every right to make every effort to advance to the base. They just cannot go "poof" the moment the defense puts him/her out.

Now if it isn't interference, I can see where the batter runner could be awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on where the ball went, where the outfielder was, etc.

If it's not interference, I'm going to tell players to stay standing up, in the baseline (if they've got the guts to take one for the team).

Why would you tell them to do otherwise? Unless sliding, runners should always stay the path.

[LeftyHitter]

Was watching the Arizona - Notre Dame game yesterday and this type interference came up. Soft liner towards F4 which she ends up playing on a short hop. R1 on 1B held up because she thought it would be caught in the air. Once it bounces she starts for second, F4 pauses and then throws to F6 for the force at 2B. F6 then throws towards 1B and hits R1 who was about half way between 1B and 2B. At the time she let go of the throw BR touched 1B. Ball bounced off of R1 and BR stayed at first. After long conference, R1 is ruled for interference and BR is declared out. ESPN "Analyst" Michele Smith says the BR would have been safe by 20 steps and can't understand why interference was called. Later in the telecast they report that someone at field level heard the 1B umpire said the BR would have been out if the throw didn't hit R1. R1 didn't do anything intentional to get in the way of the throw. In fact, in my opinion F6 threw the ball at her on purpose looking for a call since she was on the outside of the bag and hit the runner on the inside of the base path (not in line with F3 at 1B). Was this the right call? Would this have been the right call if there actually was a play on the BR? I'm more confused after the discussion above about the runner not being able to go poof and disappear.

[Comp]

I dont agree with the call that was made. The runner was doing exactly what she was suppose to do and was exactly where she was suppose to be. In fact, she knows she is out and checks up, then in self defense when the ball is thrown right at her tries to avoid the throw and gets hit in the arm/hands. The runner cannot simply dissappear from the field after being put out and needs to do something intentional to interfere with the play to be guilty of interference. In this case the runner did nothing.

[MTR]

Was watching the Arizona - Notre Dame game yesterday and this type interference came up. Soft liner towards F4 which she ends up playing on a short hop. R1 on 1B held up because she thought it would be caught in the air. Once it bounces she starts for second, F4 pauses and then throws to F6 for the force at 2B. F6 then throws towards 1B and hits R1 who was about half way between 1B and 2B. At the time she let go of the throw BR touched 1B. Ball bounced off of R1 and BR stayed at first. After long conference, R1 is ruled for interference and BR is declared out. ESPN "Analyst" Michele Smith says the BR would have been safe by 20 steps and can't understand why interference was called. Later in the telecast they report that someone at field level heard the 1B umpire said the BR would have been out if the throw didn't hit R1. R1 didn't do anything intentional to get in the way of the throw. In fact, in my opinion F6 threw the ball at her on purpose looking for a call since she was on the outside of the bag and hit the runner on the inside of the base path (not in line with F3 at 1B). Was this the right call? Would this have been the right call if there actually was a play on the BR? I'm more confused after the discussion above about the runner not being able to go poof and disappear.

That was a horrendous call. There was no INT and if anything, the retired runner actually turned away to protect herself. I have no idea what the umpire thought he saw, but even in real time, it wasn't INT regardless of whether the BR would have been safe or out had the player not been hit with the ball. I'm not impressed that when the umpires got together it wasn't corrected.

[AlwaysImprove]

Agree. Horrible call, especially given that there was such a clear lack of a play on the BR at 1b. Killed ND's rally, which could have made that game very interesting. Tough break for ND, lucky break for AZ.