Runner pulls on catcher's glove during slide

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by teebob21

From what I saw, the runner held on to the glove and pulled it with her as she slid past.

Interference, the runner was already retired, so the interference by a retired runner rules would apply.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

2007 ASA case play 1-78

B1 hits a ground ball to F3 who gathers in the ball, runs over the the 1st baseline, tags B1 then juggles the ball and drops it.

Ruling, Because F3 did not securely hold the ball, B1 is safe.

Not applicable, different play, scenario and rule

[RKBUmp]

How is 8-8-g not applicable? The runner is not out when off a base and touched with a ball not securely held by the fielder.

And as for the clarification, the rule cite in it is the same for rule 1 tag, but the actual rule they cite is for the out call based on the ball coming out after falling to the ground.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I can see how that may be confusing. Define "tag process".

There is no "process", the "tag" is the touching of the runner or batter-runner with the ball while securely held in the hand or glove.

There is no requirement, by rule or definition to maintain subsequent control for any period of time once the tag is executed.

If the ball is lost at the time of the tag, obviously the ball was not securely held. If lost after the time of the tag, the runner or batter-runner is out.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by teebob21

.....The ball comes out. BR advances to 2B when she sees the dropped ball.....

The question here for me is how to handle the runner that is active and advancing. I agree that the runner that was tagged is out. If the the other runner only attempted to advance after the ball was on the ground, do we really have interference? The way I am reading the scenario and visualizing the play, that it what I am seeing.

I think that I just kill the play and return the runner to the last base touched.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Andy

The question here for me is how to handle the runner that is active and advancing. I agree that the runner that was tagged is out. If the the other runner only attempted to advance after the ball was on the ground, do we really have interference? The way I am reading the scenario and visualizing the play, that it what I am seeing.

I think that I just kill the play and return the runner to the last base touched.

This is what we did. We ruled that the runner was guilty of INT, but was not yet a retired runner. She interfered during an active play on herself.

After the fact, I was not able to find a rule reference in the NCAA book that I liked for my own rule support. So I posted here.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

The question here for me is how to handle the runner that is active and advancing. I agree that the runner that was tagged is out. If the the other runner only attempted to advance after the ball was on the ground, do we really have interference? The way I am reading the scenario and visualizing the play, that it what I am seeing.

I think that I just kill the play and return the runner to the last base touched.

Gotta ask. What is the premise allowing you to kill the ball?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by teebob21

This is what we did. We ruled that the runner was guilty of INT, but was not yet a retired runner. She interfered during an active play on herself.

After the fact, I was not able to find a rule reference in the NCAA book that I liked for my own rule support. So I posted here.

Based on your previous posts, I'm having a hard time understanding how she had not been retired yet? From the description provided, I see a tag applied to the torso, then as the tag was being lifted off the torso, the arm grabs the glove and pulls the glove. The out was recorded as soon as she was tagged with the glove holding the ball.

I guess the bang-bang nature of the play can be used as a way to say she wasn't retired.

I think what is more important in that discussion is the nature of the actions by the batter-runner. Since it appears from your post she did not attempt to advance until the ball came loose as a result of the interference, there is no play to be made on he advancement, since the advancement didn't begin until the interference which kills the play.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Gotta ask. What is the premise allowing you to kill the ball?

Well....I'm not calling interference, since there was no play being interfered with. I'm also not letting the base runner advance due to the ball being on the ground because of the retired runners intentional action of pulling the glove off of the catcher.

I think I could invoke the "umpires may rule on anything not specifically covered in these rules" (15.2) clause here.....

[CecilOne]

This is a "big bucks" play.
Decide instantly if the tag was controlled and successful, before judging the INT possibility.
Obviously the runner caused hindrance to the catcher after that.
Then, if BR/R2 was not advancing or retreating; play on. If then, the catcher attempts a play on R2 that might succeed, rule INT and R2 is out.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Andy

Well....I'm not calling interference, since there was no play being interfered with. I'm also not letting the base runner advance due to the ball being on the ground because of the retired runners intentional action of pulling the glove off of the catcher.

I think I could invoke the "umpires may rule on anything not specifically covered in these rules" (15.2) clause here.....

The problem is if you are not ruling interference, you have to call the runner safe at home. The ball was not controlled in the tag because the glove was ripped off during the action of the tag.

In my opinion, kill the play, rule the runner out for interference. This also prevents the runner at first from advancing to second.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The problem is if you are not ruling interference, you have to call the runner safe at home. The ball was not controlled in the tag because the glove was ripped off during the action of the tag.

That is not what is in the OP
"The tag is made on the torso, but as F2 raises the glove off of R1's body",
That is an out no matter which way you want to spin it. Any subsequent rule application must apply to another runner.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The problem is if you are not ruling interference, you have to call the runner safe at home. The ball was not controlled in the tag because the glove was ripped off during the action of the tag.

In my opinion, kill the play, rule the runner out for interference. This also prevents the runner at first from advancing to second.

Andy may have misquoted me. The glove wasn't pulled off, it was just pulled and the ball came out. If I see a runner pull a fielder's glove OFF, I think I have a much easier INT call and maybe an ejection.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That is not what is in the OP
"The tag is made on the torso, but as F2 raises the glove off of R1's body",
That is an out no matter which way you want to spin it. Any subsequent rule application must apply to another runner.

What if the tag is made, but as F2 raises the glove, the ball squirts out on its own? That's not an out, and that's why we need timing and need to see the whole play. I can't know whether or not F2 was going to keep possession absent the INT. As I wrote before, I ruled that the contact with the glove after the initial tag was interference with the tag itself, and R1 was out. If I'm wrong, I am OK with that, and I'll work to do better on the "big bucks" aspect of the game next time.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That is not what is in the OP
"The tag is made on the torso, but as F2 raises the glove off of R1's body",
That is an out no matter which way you want to spin it. Any subsequent rule application must apply to another runner.

I was looking at an old book.

The rule references (from the 2010 book) I can find on the situation is 8-6-18 and 8-6-10d

"After being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. "

The problem with using this rule reference is that only half of it is correct, therefore the ruling is not correct for the circumstances. As others have said, there was no play being made on another runner, until the actions of the retired runner happened. This means tis really doesn't apply. I don't think you can allow a play to happen as a result of the actions of intentional interference by the offense.

The other rule reference is:

ART. 10 . . . The runner interferes: a. with a fielder attempting to make the initial play on a fair batted ball. b. with a fielder attempting to field a fly ball over foul territory. c. with a fielder attempting to throw the ball. d. intentionally with a fielder or thrown ball.

She clearly interfered with the fielder, but this reference is not valid either because she is not a runner at this point (if we rule F2 did not lose possession making the tag), she has become a retired runner.


I think this play has to be killed, and since I can't find a specific reference to the play in the book, I would use 10-3g (from 2010 book) to kill the play and issue the ruling. This specific instance is not covered in the book.

I also think, depending on how this occurred, you also have a possible unsportsmanlike conduct issue. Would this require an ejection? Most likely not, but a warning yes.

All in all I think this is a HTBT situation because only then can you really see and judge the intent of the player attempting to score, and that is what everything else is based on, her intent.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by teebob21

I'll work to do better on the "big bucks" aspect of the game next time.

My point and in closing, the play and most responses prove this is a HTBT play, way too many variables.