Retired BR interference
 

Had a coach question me about a play in their game where the BR runs out a can of corn to RF with R1 at first. He runs all the way to 2B after he is out
and the throw back in comes to F6 who thinks BR is R1 and of course throws it away dead at 1B. I'm thinking retired runner interference and banging out
R1 is what I tell him. Last night I look for some rules support and Carl Childress in the 2011 BRD quotes the exact play on page 193 and says in high school R1 gets third...he quotes 8.3.3.i which of course doesn't exist in the 2013 Fed rule book. He does say NCAA & OBR rule it like I originally thought. Any help please on some rules support in Fed ??? THANKS !!

ô!ô
 

Retired runners do not have to disappear.

The defense is also responsible to recognize what is happening on the field of play.

What the batter runner did is legal in "big boy" ball under all BASIC codes.

T

Supported by a FED caseplay which is what that 8. Ref is. Can't picture an NCAA or OBR ruling that this is illegal.

try p.193 in BRD 2011...quotes official interp from Thurston #204-282 for NCAA 5-3 Pen 2...says in NCAA "a retired runner may not continue to advance if such action hinders or impedes the defense"....Fitzpatrick official interp copies OBR to the NCAA. I see the Fed Case play now...thanks for pointing that out. Appears to be perfectly legal in "small boy" ball(Federation)...not
maybe so in "big boy" although I'm open to be convinced otherwise

urgone,
Here's the NCAA rule from the 2013-14 playing rules: (5-3)
(2) If a runner or batter-runner, who has been put out or obstructed, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, such runner shall be declared out because of a teammate’s interference (see 6-2-h).
A.R. 1—If the batter or runner continues to advance after being put out, that act alone shall not be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

Bolding added by me for emphasis. This is nearly identical to the OBR rule. I don't have the 2011 BRD, but I have to wonder if you're reading it correctly.

Thanks Dave....no I think I'm reading the BRD correctly. It has that same passage regards 5-3 in there. It is pretty clear though in play 132-282:
R1 on 1B, B1 pops out to F9, B1 continues to advance to 2B, F9 thinking that is R1 throws to 2B wildly...throw goes into DBT: RULING - Fed you put R1 at 3B, NCAA & OBR you call out R1. They refer to your same language of 5-3 with an official interpretation dated 11/19/90 that says "if a retired runner continuing to advance hinders a following play, the umpire must judge whether the hindrance was intentional" I suspect they rightly are saying if B1 keeps running around the bases when he damn well knows he's out that would be "intentional" and if that causes the defense to play on him then that is interference and we bang R1...but apparently NOT so in Federation play....ergo my concern/problem with the high school ruling as opposed to college or MLB.

I'm going to agree with Tim C on this one -- the standard for "intent" in this case is pretty high -- more so than might be suggested by the BRD case play.

This play is not a violation of NCAA 5-3 because the BR did nothing to interfere or impede the defense, The defense threw the ball away all by themselves. The BR did not touch the ball or a defensive player.

What we have is a simple problem with the defense not knowing what the game situation is and doing something stupid. The umpire cannot fix stupid and shouldn't try to, either! As Tim C. said, retired runners do not have to disappear and the defense needs to stay awake. By the way, we have this discussion every year and every year we get people trying to fix stupid.

I can't imagine picking that booger. That is, going so far outside what is natural, normal, and expected to get an out. I would imagine you would have to circle the wagons, cuz they'd burn down the ball park. Beside all that, the NCAA A.R. pretty much makes it clear that running the bases is not interference.

WUM play p395: (retyped and condensed by me)

"R1,R2, no out, 1-2 count. The batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop, who fields the ball to F5, covering 3B. R2 is retired on the force play, and then F5 throws across the infield to 1B. The throw is in the dirt, and just gets by F3. R2, believing he was called "safe" scrambles to his feet. Seeing the ball get by F3, R2 begins running home. F3 throws home attempting to retire R2, not knowing he had already been put out. R1 advances to 3B. Defense wants INT.

Ruling: R2 was just running the bases as he normally would, so INT should not be called. The defense is also responsible to know when a runner is put out".

Change to "as R1 attempts to advance to 3rd, Retired R2 collides with F2 preventing him from throwing to third", and I can see an INT call.

Interesting. I have the 2004 BRD, and it of course has the same interps, since they were communicated in 1999 and 2000. It has three plays, two of which involve a throw striking a retired runner (no interference), and one which involves a runner forced out at second, who then gets in a rundown between 2nd and 3rd. CC says this runner would have interfered in NCAA and OBR provided the B/R advanced to 2nd during the "rundown".

Frankly, I don't see how Carl could have come up with the ruling you've paraphrased, given the interps from Thurston and Fitzpatrick.