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.

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.

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.

Sounds like a coaching point then. :eek:Yes, it is the defense's fault for having the offense INT. Got it. :p

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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

Highly unlikely.

You, and J/R, are indeed correct.

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

ITA.

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.

No doubt.

I saw nothing that indicated this was a FED situation.

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.

What if F1 was backing up the play and would have received the ball with a chance to make a play on an advancing runner? Do you not consider the ball hitting the scored runner as hindering his play?

HTBT. Too many things to consider to be accurate.

If I were to give the quick answer it would be no, I would not call interference on the runner for a ball thrown wide of the target that hits him in the back as he is making his way to the dugout after scoring...yes, even though the pitcher could have possibly caught the errant throw and made another play. I see no reason to penalize this runner for the error of the defense. Their throw struck him.

You asked me and I answered. Now, would you penalize a runner who is hit in the back as the result of an errant throw?

Not sure why some are so hung up on the "potential/possible" play that might occur "if" the catcher or pitcher comes up with the errant (or not) throw.

Would you call R1 out in this play?

R1, no outs, screaming ground ball to F6 who tosses ball to F4 for putout of R1 at second base (R1 is still 40 feet from 2nd base). F4 then promptly tosses (erratically or not) the ball to F3, but strikes retired R1 in his helmet causing the ball to go into right field. (R1 had actually made one step in an attempt to veer out of the throwing lane). F3 absolutely would have caught the ball thrown by F4 (even if it were still somewhat errant) and there was absolutely no intent of the R1 to be hit by the throw. Anyone got interference on R1 here?

I say if you have interference on the OP then you have to have it here also, and God help you...

Question 1: Did the scored runner impede/hinder a fielder making a play on the ball.

If Yes (as in the case of the OP, F2 was about to field, or as I said, it could be a fielder backing up the play in the case of an errant throw), then...

Question 2: Did that fielder have a play on another runner.

If Yes (as in the case of the OP, B/R was advancing to 2nd), then...

Enforce Interference.

It's all in the rules - you can't ignore it just cause you don't like it or think it shouldn't be that way. The relevant rules were already outlined in this thread, so I won't badger anymore.

Judgment call.

No. You cannot project something that never occurred. If he intentionally interferes with the throw, by rule, you penalize by calling out the closest runner to the plate.

In my opinion you are applying rules that are not applicable to the sequence of this play.

7.09 It is interference by a batter or runner when...

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.

2 things in there - (1) you need the hindering or impeding (presumably of a fielder, the rule doesn't say but we know from 2.00 what constitutes interference) (2) There needs to be a potential following play being made on a runner to enforce this rule.

You MUST project what would have happened had that hindering and impeding not happened in regards to a play on another runner... its right there in the rule. Sorry for being blunt, I just don't see how this rule doesn't apply to the OP and how it should be applied or judged any different. It seems clear as day, to me, when I read this language.

If you agree that the retired runner did not intentionally interfere with the original throw, then how can you hold him responsible for what happened after the ball caromed off of him. If hes not guilty of interfering with the throw you cannot project that he impeded with a projected play that never was going to happen. Remember, the thrown ball was not legally interfered with...... Also see the play I set up. To call one interference is to call both interference...

Be careful here up upjong, there are case plays and documentation that cover R1 being called out if hit while more than half way to second. Which is more than the lack of documentation for the op.

A runner that continues to advance is not guilty of interference even when he knows he is out. Unless the interfereance was intentional. If I am coaching I am telling my players that if they don't think they can get an out, try and hit the runner, this ump will call interference.

jicecone,

Do tell!

While I am familiar with a case play (FED, FPSR) that documents that a runner who is LESS than halfway is NOT out when hit by such a throw, I have never in my life come across one even remotely like the one you describe.

Cite, please.

JM

Tuss,
If you want to penalize a runner who is hit in the back by a throw from the defense while on his way to the dugout, go ahead. Good luck with that. Around here it would probably get your schedule pulled.

Long ago, baseball rules did away with allowing the defense to gain an advantage by throwing a ball into the back of a runner. I choose to penalize those who hinder the play through blatant or avoidable actions. The runner in this scenario did not do that, the fielder who threw the ball is responsible. The runner was hit in the back while heading to the dugout, for goodness sakes. He did not impede the following play, the fielder did.

Where in the OP did it say he was going to the dugout? You are just exaggerating the situation and twisting it in an attempt to make me look like an idiot. Not appreciated. In the OP the runner turned to pick up a bat up the 1B line and was in the line of the throw to a catcher who was going to field it.

Whether you like it or not, there is rules justification that it CAN be INT in the OP. There is NO rules justification saying that it can NEVER be INT. I'd rather umpire the game using the rules provided, in conjunction with my judgment in applying those rules, and if it gets me my schedule pulled, at least I kept my integrity and dignity.

JM, don't have my books with me and per say these are not FED Case plays however, there are two references, BRD and a recently published NASO book "Plays That Trip You Up" , that make reference to a runner that is hit by a throw in a FPSR situation, when more than half way to second. As already agreed with others on this forum it is probably a call that wouldnt be made unless the runner is very close to the bag, if at all.

The point I was trying to make is, that small amount of documentation is more than the documentation that explicity gives an umpire authority to call out a runner for interference, as being discussed in this op.

jicecone,

Thanks.

I've read the BRD treatment, but have never seen the NASO book.

Is it any good? Would you recommend it?

Sounds like we're of like mind regarding "closeness" of the runner - I think of it as the "jenkins interp", because he was the first one to articulate it in a way I found clear and entirely in accordance with the text and "spirit" of the rule.

JM

I think it offers some good fresh new insight into Appeals, Balks, BOO, FPSR, HBP, Int and OBS for both NCAA and FED.

Yes I would reccomend it. I think it was less tha $20.00 or about three or four beers. Which may be a deterent for some.

jicecone,

You pretty much had me "sold" right up until the end when you called my attention to the "opportunity cost". :rolleyes: (Man, what kind of beer do YOU drink. A connoisseur, perhaps?)

Now I've got to think about it!

Thx. I'll check it out.

JM

Wow.

Since you took the gloves off...

From the original post:
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

Nowhere does he state that the runner was in fair territory, up the first base line or doing anything intentiona, blatantly ignorant or otherwise devious. Maybe where you umpire the runners cross the plate without taking a step or two beyond. Around here, when scoring from second with a throw coming in to get them, they are at full speed and require a few steps past the dish.

If you feel like an idiot, it is your inability to read that causes it. I did nothing to change the OP! Nothing.

You made a mistake. You attempted to ridicule me. Do what is right and I'll know this is just a misunderstanding and nothing more. I make plenty of mistakes and have admitted them on this forum. There is no need to create more animosity.

I'm not taking the gloves off... and I'm glad you took time to edit what you originally had written to "soften" it. We've beaten this play to death, picked apart the book, argued the semantics of the OP, etc.

In my opinion your view of INT is too narrow-minded and not in accordance with the Official Baseball Rules. Others in this thread have felt the same way. Its as simple as that, nothing more, nothing less.

I think it would compromise my integrity if I did not make what I believed to be the correct ruling just because I was afraid of my schedule being pulled. That is out of my control. I work my games to work my games, and let the chips fall where they may. Many successful umpires all over baseball do the same.

Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by "doing the right thing." Perhaps if you were more specific I would take your request under consideration. At this time I'm unable to do so because I am not certain of what it is you are looking for and how it pertains to the baseball discussion.

And others have felt the "other way." And, without seeing the play and without clarification from some official (or partially so) publication or person, this is just going to continue in a "no, you're wrong" back and forth.

So, I think all sides have been expressed and umpires can do what they think is right if / when a similar play happens.