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?

Yeah. What he said. :D

:)

Hey, I've added an ignore to my list - and now you're going to just see the kinder, gentler, friendlier Mike. :)

Can't we all just get along? :)

Your reading is more charitable than mine. I suppose I've seen too many people post that something is "not a baseball play" and a violation of "common sense," so they're going to get an out or start awarding bases.

The good news is that nobody has posted that the runner getting hit in the back counts as INT. :)

What if he is playing hopscotch back the base and gets hit in the back?:p

The NCAA has a video clip about how runners on first are coming back to the bag on the home plate side, in lieu of the right field side. The caution being given is that a normal play, the runner would return to for the back edge of the bag, to avoid being picked off. The video clip says coming back toward home, the runner may be trying to get hit with the throw. The clip cautions that any runner that comes back to first outside the width of the bag, and gets hit with the pick off attempt would be out for interference.

I think the runner going back to third (in this case) with his “hands high above his head” is trying to get hit with the throw. If that runner gets hit in the hands or arms, I will call interference.

So there. :D

JJ

That may work in your local little league but experienced umpires will simply do an "Ignatowski".

"Ignatowski": adj . . . to simply nod knowingly and smile.

T

I see what you're saying here, but I want to explore it a bit.

Let's say that R3 has been returning to third normally after every pitch. Then on a pick off attempt, upon seeing F5 raise his glove, R3 throws his hands above his head and the throw contacts his hands.

I think the consensus here is that this is interference. Do you agree?

If so, can I really make this a legal action by doing it all the time?

On the other hand, if R3 is always doing this, F2 has fair warning not to try throwing directly over R3's head.

I have to agree. How are we supposed to know that he is not trying to interfere every single time as a routine.

If you call it he won't do it again. In a way this is game management because you will prevent any problems later.

Basketball players have been doing this on free throws for years - it's illegal to wave your arms to distract a free throw shooter, so defensive players along the lane do it all the time "to be in position to grab a rebound"....yeah, right...

JJ

Wow!
 

Never knew there were this many OOOs on this list.

T

The way I see it, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

If it beats me over the head, I'll probably call something like this. But I'm not going to go looking to make such a call.