FED Play of the Day

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

While we are on the subject of things that aren't in the rule book, the distance the runner must be from the throw is not listed either. The argument that the runner is too far from 2nd to be interference does not hold water.

It holds water for me. I'm not going to penalize a runner half way between the bases for doing what he's supposed to be doing. In this instance the fielder has plenty of time to create a throwing lane around the runner due to the runners distance from second base. So, put me in the absent an overt act to committ interference this is nothing group. Had Tee said the runner was closer to second then I would have interference.


Tim.

[Tim C]

I am not trying to argue this play at all.

What I am trying to do is understand what a FED base runner is required to do by rule.

We could make the play more difficult if you want:

R1, less than two out.

A line drive is hit at F6. R1 seeing the line drive returns towards first base.

F6 legally allows the line drive to "short hop" in front of him, he makes the play on the ball and he tosses to F4 for the force who then throws to first base.

The throw hits the retreating R1 in the back as he is headed back to the base thinking the line drive was to be cuaght. So now R1 is 90' from second base whenhe is hit -- the balls then goes in to DBT.

What happens now?

Regards,

[shickenbottom]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I am not trying to argue this play at all.

What I am trying to do is understand what a FED base runner is required to do by rule.

We could make the play more difficult if you want:

R1, less than two out.

A line drive is hit at F6. R1 seeing the line drive returns towards first base.

F6 legally allows the line drive to "short hop" in front of him, he makes the play on the ball and he tosses to F4 for the force who then throws to first base.

The throw hits the retreating R1 in the back as he is headed back to the base thinking the line drive was to be cuaght. So now R1 is 90' from second base whenhe is hit -- the balls then goes in to DBT.

What happens now?

Regards,

Regardless of his distance from 2nd base, IMHO the runners actions do not constitute an obvious attempt to break up a DP. I consider "obvious attempt," as stated in the rule, as an intentional act of interference by a runner. An itentional act can be interpreted many ways because we have to make a split second decision, understanding what was the player thinking while they were doing what ever.

One must use some element of common sense when umpiring. Otherwise, a whole lot of solid excrement, (you know the word), can occur with coaches going balistic on two bit rinky dink calls.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Well Tee,

In this case R1 is not a retired runner, plus he is legally returning to a base because the rules say he has to. That would just be an error.

Like I said, I could be wrong in calling interference. I didn't see the play, so I'm just picturing it in my mind that the runner could plainly see that an easy DP was going to be made, and gotten the heck out of the way of the throw. Just like the pros do. They do not stay in the base line to get nailed with the throw. By the very act of not ducking or veering to avoid interfering with the throw, I say it's interference according to 8-4-1h.

[mcrowder]

Uh, Steve.... What?!?!

Yes, he's retired, and no, he's not required to go back to first. Did you misread?

In any of these scenarios, in either ruleset, I'm pretty comfortable saying that you have to have INTENT to rule interference.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Uh, Steve.... What?!?!

Yes, he's retired, and no, he's not required to go back to first. Did you misread?

In any of these scenarios, in either ruleset, I'm pretty comfortable saying that you have to have INTENT to rule interference.

mcrowder,

I was referring to Tim's other scenario on the line drive to F6. I thought my post would be immediately underneath his, but there are several between us. I wasn't talking about the original play.

[RPatrino]

Or.....

"If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgement of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out.

Which is also in 8-4-2g. I suppose our "judgement" would be the definition of interference, in Tee's original sitch, the retired runner is more than 1/2 way to second. In the casebook 19 sitch, the retired runner is not 1/2 to second. Now, should that information change our "judgement" on the interference?

The rule book definition of interference is..."an act by the offensive team which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play...". Is intent implied?

Bob P.