Interference by a runner who has scored.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

NFHS Rules. Visitor's dugout on the third base side of the diamond. Top of the inning, one out, R3 on third, R2 on second.

Play 1: 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 heads to his dugout. F3, after tagging first base fires to F2 who then tags R2 out at home for the third out of the inning.

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. F3, after tagging first base fires to F2 in an attempt to retire R2 who is headed for home. (a) F3's throw hits R3 in the back; or (b) F3 throws the ball over F2's head in an attempt to not hit R3. In both (a) and (b) R2 scores. Has R3 committed intereference in both (a) and (b)?

I have read the NFHS Rules and I would rule interference in both (a) and (b). If F3 never throws the ball because he is afraid of hitting R3, can R3 still be ruled to have committed interference?

I would also be interested in how this would be ruled under NCAA, OBR, and from you big dogs who work in competition like the Pan Am Games, IBF rules. Thanks in advance.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Unless R3 intentionally interfered it's nothing.

You *might* be able to make a case that 6' up the first base line is not the "normal" position for a runner who just scored and, thus, he meant to interfere. I'd look for some other action by R3 before making that ruling, however.

[charliej47]

During one of the HS clinics I was told that as long as the fielder does nothing, nothing can be called. You have to watch the play , react to the play, call the results. The retired runner staying in fair territory would in my opinion, be cause for interference "if a play was made". At this level, the players know what is going on and know how to react to the situation, if they fail to play, they mad a choice. We can not as umpires, read their minds nor judge what they might do until they do it.

[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?

[njdevs00cup]

Originally Posted by charliej47

During one of the HS clinics I was told that as long as the fielder does nothing, nothing can be called. You have to watch the play , react to the play, call the results. The retired runner staying in fair territory would in my opinion, be cause for interference "if a play was made". At this level, the players know what is going on and know how to react to the situation, if they fail to play, they mad a choice. We can not as umpires, read their minds nor judge what they might do until they do it.

Charlie, does this hold true for a batter who interferes with a catcher? I can see a catcher start his throwing motion and stop, when a batter intentionally steps across his path. I've got interference on this, whether he throws the ball or not!

[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.

[charliej47]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

Charlie, does this hold true for a batter who interferes with a catcher? I can see a catcher start his throwing motion and stop, when a batter intentionally steps across his path. I've got interference on this, whether he throws the ball or not!

You can't judge what the catcher and batter are doing without being there. If you "see" this happen then eject the batter.

[ozzy6900]

Well, when I played (in the days of yore), if I scored and there was a runner coming behind me, it was my job to direct them. But that was done from 3BLX not up the 1st base line! I have to agree with Pete Booth here in saying that the scoring runner was intentionally trying to interfere with the throw.

Regards