Runner pulls on catcher's glove during slide

[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.

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

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.

It is an out if IMJ the player had possession and securely held the ball at the time of the tag.

I know what the definition of a tag out is for NFHS, but IMO is too vague. According to the definition, F6 could tag out a runner at 2nd, and in an effort to leave the area trip/fall and lose control of the ball and that would negate the tag out.

If you can find a case play stating otherwise, I would love to know as I cannot find one

[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.