Interference by a runner who has scored.

[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.