Interference by a runner who has scored.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS Rules.

Now lets change Play 1 slightly.

Play 2: Batter hits a grounder that is fielded by F6 deep in the hole. F6 throws to F3 to get the B/R out at first base. During F6's throw to F3, R3 scores and and then takes a position facing home plate about six feet up the first base line in fair territory in a direct line between F3 and F2 who is at home plate.

Whether OBR / NCAA or FED, Interference on a thrown ball as opposed to a batted ball requires intent. Since we are not mind readers, the question we should ask is this

Is the player doing what they should be doing.

From your OP

R3 scores and and then takes a position facing home plate about six feet up the first base line in fair territory in a direct line between F3 and F2 who is at home plate.

That is not what R3 should be doing after they score. They should be heading back to the dugout. Why is R3 taking a position in a direct line between F3 and F2?

Answer: In all liklihood to prevent F2 from receiving the throw and making a play on his teammate.

In Summary from what you describe I have interference because of R3's actions.

Pete Booth

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

That is not what R3 should be doing after they score. They should be heading back to the dugout. Why is R3 taking a position in a direct line between F3 and F2?

Would you change your thinking if R3 was picking up the discarded bat?

[PeteBooth]

NO

OBR 7.11
The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

PENALTY: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out.

Pete Booth

[aceholleran]

Forget the Mega-Slurpee, 7.11 can be a sticky sitch.

Slightly off-topic, but this rule is tough to apply when runner is on base, as long as INT is not intentional.

One of the worst calls I ever kicked (many moons ago) was calling R1 out whilst he was on the base, and F3 needed to get around him to catch a foul fly.

Maybe I can't cite a rule here, but I don't like the scored runner's actions on the original sitch.

Ace

[LakeErieUmp]

Perhaps it's a matter of "players don't know the game's like the old days" because in "the old days" F3 would know to throw even if R3 was in the way, then trust the umpire to make the right call when R3 got drilled (which call the umpire would make). Throwing over or around a runner "in the way" leads to nothing good, including turning an easy interference call into us having to decide what F3 was thinking. Was he trying to avoid an interfering runner...or did his throw just suck?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by LakeErieUmp

Perhaps it's a matter of "players don't know the game's like the old days" because in "the old days" F3 would know to throw even if R3 was in the way, then trust the umpire to make the right call when R3 got drilled (which call the umpire would make). Throwing over or around a runner "in the way" leads to nothing good, including turning an easy interference call into us having to decide what F3 was thinking. Was he trying to avoid an interfering runner...or did his throw just suck?

LakeErieUmp:

After the inning was over, F3 (MTD, Jr.) told me that he didn't throw to F2 because he didn't want to hit and possibly hurt R3. I told him next time just make the throw, if he hits R3, that's life, and let the PU make or not make the call.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. This was an 18U game and I guess I have done a good job of teaching my son's to be good sportsman and respect their opponents and umpires.

[mbyron]

I think this is HTBT. The former R3 is no longer a runner, but merely a teammate. No rule states where he is to position himself, and he is allowed on the field.

INT is a possibility on the second play, but I'd have to have some other indication of intent than getting hit by a throw.

If this guy's in foul territory with his back to F3, I doubt that I'd call INT. If he's in fair territory, then that's some evidence pointing to intent to interfere.