Help with an interference call.
 

First and second, nobody out.

Base hit to left. Runner on second scores, runner from first goes to third. Throw comes to the plate wide on the first base side. Runner who scored from second, crosses the plate and veers left to pick up the bat on the way to the dugout. The throw bounces and hits him in the back, preventing the catcher from getting the throw when he most likely had a play at second on the BR.


Play on?

Dead Ball, BR out since he was likely going to be put out?

Dead Ball, runner at third out since he is closest to home?

Dead ball, no out called. BR put on first and other runner on second?

Can I assume that you believe he interferred with the play? In the play, he had just scored and bent down to pick up a bat when an errant throw from the defense hits him. Whom do you penalize?

It wasn't my game and I wasn't there. I was asked this last night while watching my son's game.

The confusion was due to the player who scored altering his path, making a left turn and right into the path of the throw.

FED refers to a runner who has just scored as a retired runner, and if you're going to call INT on one, you get either the runner who could have been put out, or, if you're not sure which that would be, the runner closest to home:

Rule 8-4-2g:
If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire,
another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner
out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner
closest to home shall be called out;

However, I would NOT have INT here, since interference with a thrown ball must be intentional (per the same rule). It's not easy to get hit in the back on purpose. And trying and failing to get out of the way would not make it intentional. That judgment is HTBT, however.

The retired runner is not required to "disappear" upon scoring, and may legally remove a bat.

That was my take also. Thanks.

It is most definitely a HTBT as I have experienced coaches who teach this s-l-o-w bat retrieval act when they see either F2 or F1 (backing up) sliding their way on an incoming throw. It was intentional, it was to divert attention and if they got hit, all the better.

I'm not a big believer in penalizing the guy who did nothing wrong. There is no right or wrong way to turn after scoring. As has been pointed out, unless the interference was judged to be intentional - doesn't sound like it should have been - this is an easy call to make. The throw was wide.

Best of luck to you and your son.

Reserve this for those times when they have no oppportunity to vacate, like two strides past the plate still moving, or having just slid in and a throw stirkes them. Not for field grooming or coaching.

Reserve the "must be intentional" to base runners, not ex-baserunners.

OBR 7.09
(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;

There is one baseball on the field, it is not hard to find, if your a retired or just scored runner, you've really nothing else to do.

The ole get out there and help is a hoax that many umps, players and coaches think is a right, it is not. Coaches have boxes, on deck hitters have circles, that's the only places they are allowed.

I was watching WSU and Cal yesterday, a just scored runner stopped to assist his base running team mates and picked up the bat.

He looks up and sees a throw coming home, what do you think he did?
F2 was between him and the ball, the throw was on the bounce. It was great to see, the kid made for a safe place with a great amount of urgency by the way, just in case the ball skipped by.

I doubt he made the evasive movement cause he was afraid of getting hurt by the throw, rather because he was well coached and knew he had to vacate.

Do game of baseball a favor, call the int., everybody will benefit.

"Teach" the O they have to vacate, they'll have a life long lesson they will thank you for. Though probably not to your face. But next practice, they'll discuss it and never offend again.

And the world will forever be greatful for this thankless, yet courageous act unprecedented in the history of mankind. :cool:

Nicely said. ;)

Not so fast. I think mbryon has it correct. The throw must be intentionally interfered with even in pro rules. In your scenario you would penalize the runner even if he was not bending over and picking up the bat but was struck by the throw after he scored and had made 3-4 steps towards the dugout. Scoring runners and retired runners are not required to just disappear. If that player is not intentionally interfering and is doing what is natural to the game (picking up the bat or heading towards the dugout), I've got nothing but a bad throw and play on. Please remember that this throw striking the runner happened before the catcher ever attempted to make a play on the not yet received thrown baseball. The only thing the runner has hindered is the catchers attempt to catch the ball and that hindrance must be intentional since it is a thrown ball.

The problem with your analysis is that there was no play being made on a runner. The catcher might not of even caught the errant throw and if he did he may or may not have attempted a throw.

I tend to agree. It is a HTBT but I find it hard to believe a play is possible on an errant throw.

Where exactly was the bat/player to get in front of this throw? Why is F2 behind him? Shouldn't he be in front of the plate? His positioning if done correctly would have helped to prevent this issue. With no possible play at the plate, he should be moving toward the ball a little to cut the throw's distance down even by 2 tenths of a second is the difference between out or safe in many cases.

It sounds like F2 had no chance at a play but is definitely HTBT.

I have nothing on the OP - play on.

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.