Help with an interference call.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Not true. Intent has nothing to do with it. If you judge the retired or scored runner interfered with the play, you enforce 7.09.

Example: R3, 0 outs. Batter flies out to right field where R3 tags and attempts to score. Once the ball is caught, the BR turns and runs towards his third base dugout where the throw from F9 hits him, preventing any play. Ruling: R3 is declared out for the unintentional INT of the BR.

This example is different from the OP, but it illustrates that the INT can be unintentional. If, in the orig OP, a play was possible, I would get the INT.

That's nothing.

A "play" and a "throw" are different things.

Try this one:

R2. Fly to F9. R2 tags and heads to 3B after the catch. F9's throw to 3B hits R2. The call?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

That's nothing.

A "play" and a "throw" are different things.

Try this one:

R2. Fly to F9. R2 tags and heads to 3B after the catch. F9's throw to 3B hits R2. The call?

I'll play. If R2 did not intentionally interfere with the throw, you play on. If R2 did intentionally interfere, R2 is out, all other runners, if any return to TOI.

We are dealing with two entirely different senarios with two entirely different rules. In my example, we have a retired runner. In yours, we have an actual "runner".

I do agree that a "play" and "throw" in our discussions can be viewed either differently or the same, depending on how the umpire views the senario playing out in front of him.

I am missing the point you are trying to make with your example.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I'll play. If R2 did not intentionally interfere with the throw, you play on. If R2 did intentionally interfere, R2 is out, all other runners, if any return to TOI.

We are dealing with two entirely different senarios with two entirely different rules. In my example, we have a retired runner. In yours, we have an actual "runner".

I do agree that a "play" and "throw" in our discussions can be viewed either differently or the same, depending on how the umpire views the senario playing out in front of him.

I am missing the point you are trying to make with your example.

Couldn't agree more.

Rich, fly ball to F7, now "retired batter" or offensive teammate, trot's up the third base line and picks up his bat and get's hit in the coconut, change your mind?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

Couldn't agree more.

Rich, fly ball to F7, now "retired batter" or offensive teammate, trot's up the third base line and picks up his bat and get's hit in the coconut, change your mind?

No.

What's the ball doing up the line? Bad throw. Too bad for the defense.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

No.

Sounds like a coaching point then.

What's the ball doing up the line? Bad throw. Too bad for the defense.

Yes, it is the defense's fault for having the offense INT. Got it.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Yes, it is the defense's fault for having the offense INT. Got it.

The throw was up the line. The runner interfered with what play? The interference with the throw was intentional?

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The throw was up the line. The runner interfered with what play? The interference with the throw was intentional?

A throw from F7 towards HP will always be "up the line" at least until it reaches HP.

The runner didn't do a thing, the retired "offensive teammate" did.

Grasp the difference between a runner and those others that might be on the field of play, realize they've different requirements and rights.

Pasted from OBR;

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with,
obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.....

SLAS: OP, was the D attempting to make a play? Yes.
As an umpire never try and read the D's mind, simply react to what is occuring. For ex., the OP, no way to know;
1. is this just a poor decision to throw to HP (late, off line?)
or
2. was it a decoy in an attempt to sucker and retire another runner (BR attempting 2B)?
The cut off man knows there's no chance at the plate, yet let's it go to sucker BR to think he can attain 2B. Makes no difference to the Umpire, is the ball in play? Yes. Is there an opportunity to make a play? Yes.

OFFENSE is the team, or any player of the team, at bat.

SLAS; OP meets this requirement..

A RUNNER is an offensive player who is advancing toward, or touching, or
returning to any base.

SLAS; In the OP are we talking about a runner? NO.

7.08 Any runner is out when—
(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;

SLAS: Ah there it is again, intentional. In the OP are we talking about a runner? NO. Skip this one.

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—
(d) Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or teammates;

SLAS; OP are we talking about a play at HP? NO. Could we be? Sure, keep this in mind for similar situations where a just scored or on deck batter is near the plate and a runner is attempting to score. Ex. just scored runner and on deck batter high fiving near the plate as R2 is attemtping to score, if the throw is coming towards HP and if F2 has to even notice them, look for int.. "Hinder, confuse or add to the difficulty" are not very specific, as they shouldn't be, umpire judgement only here. They really should be clearing out. We'll get to that in a minute..

(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

SLAS: OP, are we talking about this guy? Yes.
Are we talking about a following play on "a runner"? Yes.
Is that BR now digging for 2nd a runner? Sure is.
Any reason to think, the D has no chance at retiring another runner? Nope. And we won't find out, because why?
TIME, that's Int. at the moment of contact.
Any mention of intentional? No.
Any mention of a play at "that base"? NO.
IMHO, Rule with an unyielding, unmerciful iron fist.

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.

SLAS: Any remaining doubts from above? Use this one.
Is this a thrown ball? Yes.
Is the just scored runner a member of the offensive team? Yes.
Ya think, F2 or a backing up the plate F1 are trying to field it? Yes.
Any mention of intentional? No.

PENALTY: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out.

Any specific mention of who that might be? Nope.
Pick one, preferably the one that hurts, er, ah, I mean, "teaches" the most.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

A throw from F7 towards HP will always be "up the line" at least until it reaches HP.

.

Only if the fielder is near/at the line when he throws it. Usually NOT the case.

Can you really not track where the ball is going? Most players can. That's how they get to catch/glove/retrieve it in the first place.

[soundedlikeastrike]

I realize the writtenword is sometimes "not read as" what was intended, nature of the written word I guess.

But, I gotta ask, WT-?

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

I realize the writtenword is sometimes "not read as" what was intended, nature of the written word I guess.

But, I gotta ask, WT-?

Rich is confused.

[Dave Reed]

SLAS,

Do you have J/R? See See Ch 13, Section 6, Interference by an Offensive Teammate. The term offensive teammate includes retired runners. They say it is interference if the offensive teammate "blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball."

Rule 7.11 doesn't require a retired runner to instantly disapppear from live ball territory. A retired runner who is struck by an errant throw may have interfered, or not. It depends on the situation and the actions of the retired runner. A retired runner who is retrieving a bat may simply be acting as he should. If so, it ain't interference.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Rich is confused.

Perhaps about something, but not this call. He's nailed it. No one working professionally would call it any other way.

I used to read about umpires inserting themselves in games. I never really saw an example of that until this thread. Anybody stretching interference to include this play apparently has a need for attention.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Ump153

Perhaps about something, but not this call. He's nailed it. No one working professionally would call it any other way.

I am an amateur umpire, I could not care how the professionals might handle a FED rule call.

I used to read about umpires inserting themselves in games. I never really saw an example of that until this thread. Anybody stretching interference to include this play apparently has a need for attention.

Wild specualtion, im amateur opinion.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Rich is confused.

Highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

SLAS,

Do you have J/R? See See Ch 13, Section 6, Interference by an Offensive Teammate. The term offensive teammate includes retired runners. They say it is interference if the offensive teammate "blatantly and avoidably hinders a fielder's try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball."

Rule 7.11 doesn't require a retired runner to instantly disappear from live ball territory. A retired runner who is struck by an errant throw may have interfered, or not. It depends on the situation and the actions of the retired runner. A retired runner who is retrieving a bat may simply be acting as he should. If so, it ain't interference.

You, and J/R, are indeed correct.

Originally Posted by Ump153

Perhaps about something, but not this call. He's nailed it. No one working professionally would call it any other way.

No one I know working amateurishly would call it any other way either.

Originally Posted by Ump153

Anybody stretching interference to include this play apparently has a need for attention.

ITA.

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

I am an amateur umpire, I could not care how the professionals might handle a FED rule call.

No rule set was specified in the OP, so the conversation began by a discussion of pro rules, and the J/R manual was referenced specifically. I don't recall anyone saying this was a FED play.

Most of us here professionally umpire amateur baseball. We aren't "amateur" umpires. I lost my amateur standing in 1986.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

I am an amateur umpire

No doubt.

I could not care how the professionals might handle a FED rule call.

I saw nothing that indicated this was a FED situation.