runner struck by thrown ball
 

ball hit to shortstop who tosses to second for force out. Runner from first is approximately 6-l0 feet from second when second baseman catches ball and turns to throw to first for attempted double play. Throw hits runner from first in mid thigh(no way for throw to reach first) and umpire calls batter out for runner interference. Correct Call?

Who did the umpire call interference on? The runner from first or the batter/runner?

Peace

he call interference on the runner from first

That would be the proper enforcement if there was interference ruled by the umpire. This is after all a judgment call. Not much I can say about the judgement of the umpire. What did the runner actually do in the umpire's mind to warrant a call like this?

Peace

Unless R1 was out of direct line between bases by more then 3 feet and was trying to INTENTIONALLY block throw @ 2nd there would have been no interference.

the runner from first was in the basepath directly between first and second. Big, slow kid who was not fast enough to get out of the way or brave enough to intentionally take a thrown ball for the good of the team

Mr. Big,

The 3 feet rule only applies to avoiding a tag. The runner establishes his own baseline between his starting position and the base to which he is advancing or retreating. The runner in this case has to intentionally move into the path of the throw with the intent to block the throw, as you said, in order to judge interference.

The runner establishes his base path, not the baseline. The baseline stays the same because the bases do not move.

Peace

You're right, Rut. I stand (or sit) corrected.

I never noticed the distinction between the two words because they're used interchangeably. Good pickup on that.

Jeff:

Assuming this was a FED game, would you have the runner out for interference due to his proximity to second base on this play? I realize that it's hard to say without seeing the play, but I wonder if that might not apply here.


Tim.

No I would not. The only way I can see calling interference for a play like this if the runner did everything on purpose to get hit by the ball or get in the way of the throw. This play does not sound like that.

Peace

Bear with me, Jeff. I understand that in an OBR game if a runner who has been out out continues to advance, he shall not by that act alone considered to have interfered. I thought that 8-4-2(b) by intent stated that the runner had to either slide or veer away from the throwing lane of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on another runner.


Tim.

Tim,

I don't think the runner has to slide or veer away from the throw. He is not required to slide on a force play, but if he does elect to slide, the slide must be legal. See 8-4-2, EXCEPTIONS AND NOTES. The runner in this case was 6-10 feet from the base and may well have been just about to slide. He still must intentionally interfere with the throw in order to have interfered. The runner would be out if he: a) slides ilegally and causes illegal contact (with the fielder) and/or, b) illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play. Getting hit with a thrown ball does not constitute these two things. See the example in Case Book 8-4-2 SIT. R (2005 book), while not the same exact play, still illustrates the point.

Sorry I do not have my rulebooks right here at this moment. I do know that you cannot interfere with a fielder making any play. Now that the very strict interpretation of the rules and I do understand how people can draw a conclusion. I just think it does not make good common sense to call interference on a play like this just because the runner was running where they were supposed to.

Peace