Goofy one tonight
 

Bases loaded and less than 2 outs. Batter hits a soft loopy line drive at F4 who temporarily has it for a split second, then drops it. I, as BU, give the no-catch signal and verbalize it in a normal voice since it was a fairly obvious no catch. R1, however, turns to go back to first base before the ball is touched and dropped, so he wasn't sure if it was caught or not.

F4 throws to F6 covering 2nd to get the force out on R1. They then try to throw to first to get the BR, however, R1 is still standing on the base and gets in the way of F3 trying to catch the throw.

Coaches want INT on R1, but i didn't call it based on 2 things:

1) Interference with a thrown ball requires intent and i didn't feel that R1 intentionally did what he did because he wasn't sure it was caught.

2) A retired runner, by running the bases unsure of his situation, can not be called for interference by that act. 7.09(d) comment.

On the other hand, R1 did get in the way of F3 when he was already put out.



I'm 50/50 on this call. Right in the middle of the fence. I'm leaning towards i made the right call but i'm unsure.

Not sure about your second reason, that comment seems to only imply a runner continuing to advance on a play. Was R1 really attempting an advance? He was already put out, his advance would have been to second, and instead he is standing on first.

I may have INT here, but I'd have to see it to judge your first reason.

Dead ball, BR out, other runners return. 98.437% of the time it's "intentional".

In the off-chance it wasn't, then you made the correct call.

Interference can be intentional or unintentional. That being said the runner is retired and has no business standing on first base. I'd call interference double play inning over. You called no catch no excuse on the runners part not (although unlikely how do you know R1 seeing the batter going back to the plate didn't intentionally interfere?) knowing the situation. You also have the issue of the batter returning to the plate another bone head play. This is an easy double play to sell. You gave the offense an undeserved extra out.

what about an "intentional drop" here?? This seems like a text book Int drop scenario...

This was my first thought as well, at least if the players are over the age of 12.

all,

the line drive drop was 100% not intentional. that is not the issue. I'd like opinions on the INT no-call.

Also, more on R1- he started running when the ball was hit, but when it was apparent it would be caught, he bolted back to first before the ball was subsequently dropped. So, he had his back to the play.

Sounds like the other 1.563% of the time Bob mentions above, ie unintentional. Good no call if that is your judgment on the call, and apparently it was.

I think you are missing the point. Here is a sequence of events to hopefully clarify things:

-Loopy liner is hit to F4
-R1 after starting for 2nd, sprints back to first
-F4 drops ball
-F4 throws to F6 to force out R1 at 2nd
-***F6 throws to F3 to try to get the BR at first, but R1 is standing on first base unsure of his status and gets in the way of F3 fielding the throw. (I call no INT on R1 based on my reasons stated in the original post).


The play with the *** is the call in question.

A run or two score?
 

Why didn't F4 throw to F3 for a much easier DP? HTBT.
Should R1 have to slide or avoid F3 or make an attempt to avoid being touched by a thrown ball? No.
This play would not be interference as long as R1 made no known movement to swipe at the ball or made no intentional contact with F3 to prevent him from catching it such as swiping at his glove.
F3 would also have to try to make the catch in a manner consistent with a catch from F1 or F2 after a bunt and without the protection of the runner's 3-ft lane.
No interference would be valid unless, in your judgement, R1 acted inappropriately.
I agree with everyone else here who has stated that you made the right call.

What Bob said...

IT's been asked and answered several times -- it's not interference when R1 is hit by the throw in the play you describe.

From the Common Sense and Fair Play Rule Book:

What is R1 doing retreating to 1B?

He is interfering with subsequent play. I don't see any "intent" mentioned in 7.09(d).

Ace

Thanks guys. I'm glad i got it right on the field.

7.09(d) comment woes...
 

7.09d (and subsequent comment) has to do with a runner ADVANCING after being retired. I don't see how this situation falls into that comment, as I stated earlier in the thread. That comment seems to me as one for runners who are sliding into 2nd on a double play, etc.

Is there another casebook ruling that makes this situation, and everyone's certainty of no INT if not intentional, more clear? Or is everyone just pulling this interp from 7.09?

I'm just having a hard time seeing how an R1 so stupid has a rule that protects him from INT :confused: