An interference call in the Syracuse-Duke Softball game on 3-19-21.

An interference call in the Syracuse-Duke Softball game on 3-19-21.
Despite what the announcers think, I'm not sure it was interference. The shortstop never hesitated.

[@stevebesaw1094]

As a Rules Interpreter, I see nothing wrong here. The runner made a typical softball act in running directly to the next base on the batted ground ball. At no time did she force the fielder to alter her path to the ball or did she force the fielder to hesitate in her act of attempting to field the ball. While I like that the umpires got together and discussed the play when the coach for Duke questioned the call, I am at a loss to see how they could have reversed the call based on that discussion.

[@ronpeacock9939]

I agree fully... both are doing what they are supposed to... the fielder didn't even flinch due to the runners position and the runner has the rights to run the bases too... in this case, the ball is a slow roller and the fielder would have had to make a great play to come up with it and get the out at first and that's what she tried to do.. and in doing so, didn't get in front of the ball... I would not have been surprised if the runner stayed at second if the ball still doesn't end up in LF... Poor call to placate a coach. Personally, she went to the wrong umpire to plead her case... 3BU would have been a better choice.

[@geteven3107]

the commentator is clueless

[@davidfincher4571]

Very

[@dogpatch75]

Video makes it much easier to decide if this is interference or not. However, this is always the umpire's judgment based on what he/she saw in real time. Umpires may confer, but changing the call is unlikely unless the other umpire(s) clearly saw something the ruling umpire missed.

[@MaydayAggro]

The calling umpire clearly signaled "that's nothing." Not sure how they can reverse that. Looks to be nothing to me too. Despite the fielder seeming to attempt to get the call, she did not appear to be affected at all by the runner other than misplaying the ball, and I think it can be argued that her focus on generating an interference call instead of fielding the ball was probably the cause more than anything done by the runner.

[@critter2]

@@MaydayAggro you don't need to be touching a player for interfrence the feilder has the righht to feild the ball but its also judgement call if the player could of made play without the runner getting in the way. I had a clear obvious one in touarment with 10u runner from 2nd going to third interfered with short stop fielding the ball. called the runner out from 3rd and batter runner awarded first base. My plate umpire was going to call himself as well.

[@mptr1783]

the 3rd base umpire had a clear look at the play and signaled "safe" meaning no interference. The other 2 umpires also can make the call but also called nothing. IMO, the play should stand.

[@matthiasbreithaupt1391]

The fielder who was protected from interference on this play was the third baseman. The runner saw the third baseman in her field of vision going for the ball so she veered to the right to give her space to make that play. The shortstop was only the backup on this play. Nobody knew the third baseman was going to miss the ball, and the umpire saw and signaled that there was no interference by the runner on the third baseman. The only reason the shortstop wasn’t called for obstruction was because there was no contact between those two. Runner did not interfere with the third baseman, and nothing else was relevant because the shortstop did not obstruct the runner.

[@babababad]

U2 gives "no interference" because he can't judge how close 3B is to the ball. But from PU's perspective there's no way 3B is reaching that ball in time. SS is the only one with a play so she gets protection the whole time. It's borderline but I do think the crew got the right call in the end. 3B isn't anywhere near runner so there's no obstruction. I do think SS was trying to draw the interference call because of the way she doesn't react to missing the ball...just keeps running past it with her glove open.

[@bigsnook2769]

Terrible call. No Interference. If anything, she should have returned to 2B, as it did not appear intentional.

[@alanhess9306]

Intent is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the rule.

[@Cirdon91]

@@alanhess9306the rule shown on screen literally says the runner can be called out “it it is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play” which requires intent (you can’t ATTEMPT something without intent). If there’s no obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the call of interference just puts the runner back on 2B instead of scoring. That said, I hate how much baseball and softball try to legislate for everything. To me, a runner going directly to the next base in a straight line like this should never be illegal, but apparently those in charge of the rulebooks think I’m wrong, 🙄

[@alanhess9306]

​@@Cirdon91 I'm referring to the runner advancing to third base. There does not need to be intent to call interference when a runner hinders a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. You are referring to an obvious attempt to break up a double play, which did not happen here. Having said that, I'm a baseball umpire and don't know softball rules that well. Why would the runner be put back on second base when interference was called? Is that really the rule? Under baseball rules, if a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, both the runner who interfered and the batter-runner are called out.

[@Cirdon91]

@@alanhess9306I know you’re referring to the runner advancing to third, and I’m referring to the NCAA rule that is literally displayed on screen in the video we are commenting on: “If a base runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, the ball is declared dead, and each base runner must return to the last base legally touched. If the umpire determines the interference was an obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the runner can be called out.”

[@willowbrook2717]

@@Cirdon91 If there is interference somebody is out. Every time. The runner going from 2nd to 3rd is called for interference and will not be put back on 2nd base. The batter in this case will go to first base. Because the batter advanced to 1st, if there had been a runner on 1st they would've advanced to 2nd because they were forced to. If there had been a runner on 3rd, if the interference had occurred before that runner had scored then she would be put back on third. And intent has zero effect on whether interference is called. Just like the other commenter tried to explain, if interference is called whether it is intentional or not, the runner who interfered is out and if they hindered the opportunity for a double play then the batter-runner can be called out.