That's because professional players know that they should get the hell out of the way.

I used to read about umpires refusing to enforce the rules because they didn't want to insert themselves into the game.

It is very difficult to determine how an umpire should rule when it comes to OPs that are vague. If a retired/scored runner interfers with a play, the runner being played is called out. This rule applies when said runner does something other than running out his initial responsibilities.

Last point, leave it to J/R to meld two seperate rules together and come up with an incorrect interpretation. OBR specifically has rules for offensive teammates and players that have scored or been retired. Once an umpire learns the rules, learns the spirit of the rules and knows how to apply them he can call a game without worrying about inserting himself into it.

The OP wasn't vague. The runner, after scoring, is hit in the back by a poorly thrown ball away from the play.

That is not interference. Simple.

Maybe we were looking at different posts?

The OPers "second post" clarified further what occured on the play from the OP. "The confusion was due to the player who scored altering his path, making a left turn and right into the path of the throw."

Doesn't sound like a bad throw that had no shot of being fielded.

But it does sound both "blatant and avoidable" to me.

And no doubt would be judged the same by any knowledgable/trained umpire, were it to occur in front of them. Regardless of the responces here, I'm confident that this would be called int. correctly everytime.

I have called this one time in 30+ yrs., heard of it being called on one other occasion by an umpire with more years than I. So, twice that I am aware of in over 60 years of umpiring, it's a TWP at best.

So, if you've a grasp of the rules, a sense of fair play, are willing to do the right thing, then you too would enforce this accurately should the need arise.

And don't worry, should you screw it up or choose not to enforce due to a lack of TF, I'm pretty sure the coaches won't know anyway.

So just make it sound good and you'll be fine, unless of course it gets to a knowledable protest committee, then you might just be "coming back" and working for free.

How so? He was doing what he was supposed to, and had no knowledge of where the ball was travelling.

Your second sentence here does not match the first. A knowledgeable, trained umpire is NOT going to call this INT absent intent.

The reason that you've heard of it being called twice is that those are the times it was called incorrectly.

Yep, which is not what you are positing.

All that chest-pounding soapbox action, and you're still wrong.

Learn the intent of the rules before you take the podium. If you're the umpire, and I'm the coach, guess where I'm telling my guys to throw the ball?

"He was doing what he was supposed to, and had no knowledge of where the ball was travelling."

Oh man, I really screwed this one up... not.

Please quote me anything from a rule book which backs up the first 1/2 of that statement.

And clarify how to meet the requirements of 7.11 unless one knows where the ball is traveling.

As to where you'd tell your players to throw; I'm guessing, you'd tell your players something like; "your throws must be absolutely thread the needle perfect, especially on a throw to the plate, no other way to get it through the 3 offensive players gathered around there doing their jobs."

or

something really smart, like: throw at blue's 100's of dollars worth of protective gear that sheds foul balls like water off a ducks back so I can leave early..

You do realize that although you are 100% correct, you are arguing against a mob who are rolling logs in an effort to distract your accuracy? ;)

Yes. Takes more than the "loudest" to convince me however.

Let me whisper then....you are incorrect in all codes,

I see a few HTBTs and a couple insisting that the player has to vacate. I still haven't seen anyone post a rule that says a runner who just scored cannot pick up the bat or must turn a specific way. Look at the OP again:

The throw comes wide...that is a defensive mistake.

I have never seen a runner score on a play like this and stop at the plate. Maybe I have been fortunate but most runners I see are in full stride when a throw is headed their way on a chance to score. A step or two beyond the dish is usually needed. In the OP there was no indication of a slide.

Unless the bat was in fair territory, he was hit in the back after scoring but before he picked up the bat...on the way to the dugout! If the bat was in fair territory then I look at this play differently. However, it was not described that way. As I stated in the first reply to the OP, do you penalize a player for doing nothing wrong? I don't.

The way I read the OP, it was not INT because while I don't need intent to call INT on a retired / scored runner, I don't believe it fits the requirement for impeding or hindering a fielder's play. It seems to me the ball had already passed the catcher and was headed to the screen. It is possible that F1 was back there ready to make a play on it, but you'd really have to be there.

In the end, the questions that needs to be answered is "Did the runner (scored runner, or even OD hitter) hinder, impede, or confuse a fielder who was making a play on the ball?" Being hit by a thrown ball, even unintentionally, can most certainly be considered "hindering." But DID it hinder is another question, one you have to be there to judge. It may have even made it easier for the defense to retrieve!

If the answer to Q1 is yes, then "Did that fielder have a potential play on another runner?". If yes, nail it.

I think the most likely INT play is a thrown ball that gets through the catcher and rolls into the area where already scored runners and the on-deck hitter are. You could have them INT with either F1 or F2. In which case you are probably going to bang out whoever is trying to advance at that time, and if given the choice, get whoever is advancing home cause that was the likely play.

Just read the OP one more time, not fully understanding it. Maybe F2 was scrambling to try to stop the ball, and it hit the scored runner while it was on the way to F2? If that's the case, INT if F2 had another play somewhere, which in the OP it says he did.

Pretty clear upon second reading of the OP, but I still maintain that it won't be 100% of the time either way and you just have to know the checklist required for INT.

Like I said, unless the runner entered fair territory to retrieve the bat, he is not mandated to turn a specific way once scoring. The OP did not specify other than to say he was attempting to retrieve a bat on his way to the dugout.

So you can't interfere in foul territory? Is that what you are saying?

I think he's saying "It's very difficult for a person authorized to be on the field to unintentionally interfere with a thrown ball that's in foul territory."

Thanks Bob. I simply commented on the original play.

I would not judge interference by a player who is struck in the back by an errant throw after he crosses the plate and is stopping to pick up a bat while on the way to the dugout.