I never said immediately and that it is an absolute. I said it COULD be interference. And I also said it is very very rare for it to occur.


I wish I had a cool signature

BlueDevil in effect.

No, it could not be interference, by rule. There must be an act of interference by the retired runner. And no, at no time do the have to abandon their path. Actually, abandoning their path is more likely to cause INT since that would be an act which could interfere with the defense's attempt to make an out

So, you are saying, by rule, that if a runner is forced out at 2nd and then just stops advancing or very slowly continues in base path and the ss fires to first and the runner is hit in the head by the ball, you got nothing?

I respectfully disagree. My belief in the rule is that her act is that she didn't act. A retired runner does not have a right to stand in the base path. And I've called this exactly never bc I've never seen it but I can say this, I used to do if when I played. I'm 6'5, 300lbs and when I remain in base path and lolly my way along after being put out, I was damn sure doing it to interfere with throw to first, so yes, it does happen.


I wish I had a cool signature

Can a runner forced out at 2B slide into 2B?

Sure, if it is happening as part of normal play. But in my scenario and forgive that I'm probably not real clear bc I'm on the app on my phone and it's hard to type up what I'm trying to convey, is a runner about halfway bw 1st and 2nd. As I've said above, if this happens bang bang and is very close to 2nd base, I def have no call. Maybe I didn't state that well enough before. But I meant more if a runner was retired in bw the bags.


I wish I had a cool signature

Both of these are acts of interference because the offense is no longer attempting to run the bases, they are "doing something" that could be considered interference.

A retired runner continuing to run at the same pace and on the same path is not committing an act of interference.

You keep changing the scenario to fit your view of the rule.....

I don't "have" anything other than a live ball

A retired runner has every right to not be forced to act in a manner that possibly interferes and that is exactly what could happen if s/he left the determined path

A runner staying the course is actually doing the fielder a favor. That way the fielder KNOWS where the runner is supposed to be so s/he can throw the ball where the runner is not, much like a catcher knowing to throw around a batter and not expecting the batter to move out of the catcher's way. For this reason, I would disagree with Andy's assertion that just standing there or moving slowly alone could be acts of INT

At the UIC clinic in 2007, one of the plays giving an example of how the rule change effected how INT should be rule involved a relay throw to 1B for the back end of a deuce. Two scenarios were offered. The first was the ball hit the R1. The second was R1 fell and then stood up in front of the throw and was hit.

The ruling in the first scenario is no INT and the ball remains live. On the second, the runner standing up and hitting the ball was considered an act of INT even though it was unintentional.

The fact that we have this debate 2 - 3 times a year tells me that even with or cadre of experts, interpreters, UICs, clinicians and Council attendees; there is no clear and consistent rule. Especially true between NFHS, ASA, etc.

Not being in the above categories, my learned understanding and my applications are that the runner does not have to disappear, evaporate or "unrun"; and if the runner happens to be in the way, so be it.

Of course, I remember being told after the fact by a Rules Interpreter that I was wrong on a call using that basis.

I've changed nothing. OP asked if runner had to vacate, which we know she does not. My point was that you have to judge the act. Period. And you agree that slowing or stopping would be an act. That was my only point and it came from me doing it when I played and I knew that I was doing it intentionally.



I wish I had a cool signature

Sorry, just signed up not long ago bc I found the app to use on phone so I've not been around for previous debates. I can see we have two pretty distinct thoughts on this and it doesn't appear anyone is going to change. Ha!!! Oh well, nothing like a rarely used rule up for debate in middle of off season


I wish I had a cool signature

As someone stated, considering this comes up at least 2-3 times a year, over and over and over again why has there never been a case play or clarification issued on it?

The irony is that while most associations' (ASA and NFHS) official rulings match what you are stating here, the NCAA interpretation has been that the retired runner must go "poof" (or slide well before the base??). Remember the rulings in postseason play a few years ago?

Yet, once a just-retired runner reaches the base, NCAA allows the baseball-style muggings to break up a DP, while the others (ASA and NFHS) require a more controlled effort that is based on running the bases in an effort to be safe, not interfering with the defense making a play.

The super regionals where real ugly that year, sadly the NCAA allows for the "incidental"head hunting for a DP on these play.
I agree, if the runners has done everything she was suppose to be doing, she cannot just disappear.

I do and think it is still just as much a wrong call now as I did when I saw them. Problem is the NCAA rule is very similar to ASA in requiring an "act" by the offensive player.

IMO, permitting this manner of target practice is callous and borders on a cowardly interpretation that jeopardizes fair play and the health of the player.