Didn't come into play, but...
 

We played a team the other night (FED rules). R3 took his lead from the bag. Each time a pitch was caught by F2, the runner went back to the bag with his hands high over his head. My question is: What would have happened had F2 attempted to pick him off and:

a. The ball hit him in the hands or arms

b. The ball hit him in the back of the body

(a) if the umpire judged that the runner was not intentionally reaching for the thrown ball, play on, no interference. If the runner is not looking back at the throw, it's hard to see how this could be INT.

(b) this is almost never INT -- you'd have to rule that he threw himself in the path of the thrown ball intentionally.

A slight quibble on this. He needs to be intentionally interfering. He doesn't need to be intentionally "reaching for the thrown ball." Even reading F5's eyes and reaching up *could be* enough.

This (depending on the umpire configuration) is a good opportunity for game management. Address it before it becomes a problem

By rule that's right, of course. I was addressing the OP's situation, where the runner routinely had his hands up high above his head. If that's part of his routine (weird routine), it's unlikely to be INT.

Although that may be part of his "routine", one can only assume that he is doing it for the express purpose of interfering with a possible throw into F5. If the ball hits his arms, I'm banging him out for INT. I bet that would make him reconsider his "routine".

Mmmmm,
 

I do not agree with your position.

You cannot assume that he is trying to anything other than protect himself from being hit by the throw from F2.

It would be stretch for me to even consider that he was interfering.

T

It would have bruised his hands or arms, but no interference.

It would have bruised his back, but no interference.

I understand. It is a HTBT sitch. If the player has his arms around his head for protection, that's one thing. If he has his arms outstretched, straight, that is another.

Why?

Because he's not making a baseball play. This comes down to a little bit of common sense.

Sounds more like making up rules.

The rule specifies that interference with a thrown ball must be intentional, not that it's to be called whenever someone fails to make a "baseball play."

The point is, if the player is not playing the game the way everyone else does, he loses the benefit of the doubt. I'm not making any rules up whatsoever. If he does something out of the ordinary, it's gotta make me seriously consider he's doing this intentionally.

Since this was posted as a FED game, please dont forget that these are teen age players and below. I really dont think you want to place a parameter of "ordinary" on these players.

I think he's really trying to say that if the arm movements are not natural to the play, his assumption is far more likely to be that the arm movements are intentional, and an attempt to interfere with the throw. If, however, the arm movements just look like a kid protecting himself, the tendency would be to assume just that - he's not trying to interfere, he's just protecting himself.

I didn't think he was inventing anything ... just perhaps not completely explaining his meaning.

B/R running to first base within confines of 45 foot lane. F2 throws. B/R is running waving his left arm over into fair territory, not a part of his natural running motion. Ball hits him.

This is clearly interference. Why else is he doing this other to interfere? If I see no explanation as the umpire (loss of balance, some weird way of protecting himself), I have to deem it intentional.

I think in the original situation, we will differ because we call various levels. Inexperienced players, that may not be interference because he may not know any better and his acts aren't done with intent in his own pea brain. D1, why else is he doing that, does he not know how to play baseball?