This was in a game I was watching, not calling, and I've never seen it before. HS varsity game under FED rules.

R1 and R2, 1 out. Batter smokes a deep line drive to left center. Center fielder makes a great play and cathes the ball for out two. R2 tags and goes to third. R1 is heading back to 1st base. BR thinks he burned the outfielders and was running hard the whole time going for a double. R1 is on the inside and the BR makes a wide turn, not seeing his teammate R1 or the catch and heads for second. Relay comes to F6 who turns and fires and throws out BR. BU doesn't realize and calls out BR.

Offensive coach comes comes out saying (correctly) that you can't be out twice. Defensive coach wants interference because F6 could've gone backdoor to get R2 at third but was confused thinking BR was actually R1 tagging up and going for second. What's the call?

Thankfully, I got to talk to PU after the game as I work lots and lots of basketball with him. They determined that all the runners were at their bases and there was no chance for a put-out by F6. Because no runners advanced past where they would've been, there was no interference called and the game continued under protest.

Was the call right? Is this a valid protest if the umpires were wrong?

Well,
 

No player is required to "disappear" when put out.

BR has every right to run until he is clearly out.

The defense (and in this case umpire) have a responsibility to know what is happening.

Edmonds (Washington) Community College always had the BR continue his route after hitting a fly ball.

After several complaints a ruling was requested from the NCAA (this will date the game and how old I am) at this time there were official rulings from the NCAA on Junior Colleges.

The ruling agreed that the BR has every right to run until it is obvious he is out . . . baring any intentional contact with a defensive player or the ball there appears to be no violation of rules in your play.

And yes, he can only be out once.

[Edited by Tim C on Apr 14th, 2005 at 09:47 AM]

Re: Well,
 

This was a set play in Washington about five years ago at the HS level where the BR would try to draw a throw. Word quickly circulated that this was to be ruled interference by the retired BR. Don't remember all the details, but I bet Tim Stevens would.

I agree with Tim... and would add that if BU was confused about the out call in the outfield, you certainly can't hold the BR responsible for also being confused. I would not have interference here unless I could somehow infer intent on this play (and from what you've said, it doesn't sound like you have intent).

Thanks, Rich.

the defense bears some responsibility for what is going on. Why did F6 react to BR? Unless BR intentionally interfered with a throw to try and putout the remaining two runners, then I have nothing.

There was no confusion on whether on not the ball was caught. The center fielder caught the ball over his shoulder on the run. It was not a trouble catch. BR just wasn't watching the ball because (I think) he thought he burned 'em. I originally thought it was R1 as well, but I did not think there was any intent, just a runner with his head down. I still can't believe he didn't see his teammate booking back to first. Peace.