Interference??

[BlueDevilRef]

Yep, and I'm saying a retired running is no longer entitled to that space, thus the "act" that you are requiring


I wish I had a cool signature

[RKBUmp]

That is not an act of interference. Nothing in the rules requires the runner to immediately disappear after they are put out.

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

That is not an act of interference. Nothing in the rules requires the runner to immediately disappear after they are put out.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

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.

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

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Yep, and I'm saying a retired running is no longer entitled to that space, thus the "act" that you are requiring


I wish I had a cool signature

I don't know about the softball codes but in baseball continuing to run the bases is not by that act alone INT.
Per Wendelstedt:
BR overruns 1B on a fly to behind 1B. F3 makes catch and throws to get R3 tagging or whatever. Throw hits the retired BR. Nothing.
On DP ball retired R1 slides legally into 2B and takes out pivot man. Legal.
On any play, a retired runner peels off. He is now responsible to avoid a throw.