Interference?

chapmaja

DeputyUICHousto wrote
Isn't the runner permitted to run the bases as long as it is done so properly?

The key word is properly. Is the base runner legally allowed to run through home and contact a defensive player making a play on another runner? No. Therefore no matter if it is an inch, a foot, or 10 feet, once the runner has scored and then makes contact, she has interfered, and this is interference by a retired runner, thus the run scores, the runner closest to home is declared out due to the interference by a retired runner.

Is this a fair ruling? Most likely not, but the rules don't specifically allow a runner coming home to run through the base, but they do seem to prohibit the runner from coming home and then interfering with a fielder making a play on another runner.

Here is something else to consider. How is home plate different than second or third. If a runner ran through second or third and contacted a fielder making a play on another runner, after having been retired, we have interference by a retired runner. The same principal applies to the play at home plate.

chapmaja

Dakota wrote
Part of the discussion in this thread was whether F2 had a play on the BR. Some, maybe even you? (too lazy to page back through the thread) claimed that the throw itself was ipso facto a play whether there was any realistic chance of recording an out or not. I disagree with that notion (although Fed did confuse the waters on this point with their interpretation of the running lane violation on a base on balls...).

In the case of the OP, I don't see the ruling being materially different between F2 being behind the plate vs in front of the plate ("behind" and "in front" are from the runner's perspective), other than the change in applicable rule from a runner to a "retired" runner (i.e. runner who has scored) colliding with a fielder in possession of the ball.

You have a fielder in possession of the ball and a runner colliding with the fielder. So, apart from any penalty associated with the collision itself (e.g. malicious, etc.), you have the question: was this interference? Which leads to: what was the act of interference, and what was the play being interfered with?

Frankly, the OP was too skimpy on the details to answer either question, IMO.

I think I mentioned this point earlier on in the thread. In my opinion on this play, the fielder must have a legit chance to make a play on the runner for there to be interference. If the fielder throws to a base and the runner (or batter runner) is already at or past that base, or there was no chance to get that player, there is no interference because no play can be made because there is no way to retire the batter runner.

DeputyUICHousto

You'll penalize a runner for doing what she is supposed to do...run the bases? A runner is NOT required to slide...ever. So, by simply running the bases and touching them in legal order you're going to get an out?

chapmaja

DeputyUICHousto wrote
You'll penalize a runner for doing what she is supposed to do...run the bases? A runner is NOT required to slide...ever. So, by simply running the bases and touching them in legal order you're going to get an out?

No, because the runner has no legal right to run through home plate and interfere with a fielder making a play, thus she is not properly running the bases. Nobody says she has to slide, however can can not interfere with a fielder making a play. Sliding is simply one way she can avoid interfering, so would stopping right on the plate and than stepping backward to avoid contact. Easily done at full speed? Nope, but better than running through the plate and interfering with a player making a play on another runner.

« Previous Page