BR collides with F3 after catch

[DTQ_Blue]

This happened in my game a couple weeks ago. NFHS rules in effect. Would like input on how you see this play.

Runner at 3rd, one out, fly ball to F3 who is in foul territory when
she catches the ball reaching over the orange base.

The ball is in the air long enough to allow the batter-runner to be
close enough to F3 at the time of th catch to collide with F3 just after
the catch, knocking F3 to the ground. The collision appeared to be
incidental and not intentional.

Though the runner at 3B would arguably not have attempted to advance, being very heads-up, she immediately broke for home from 3B when F3 was knocked over and easily scored.

Had the collision not occured the ball is arguably just returned to the
pitcher and no "play" would have occurred. But because of the
collision, the runner had an opportunity to advance and F3 could not recover quickly enough to make a play on runner.

Is this interference on the BR, and if so what NFHS rule would you apply?

[markrischard]

Ball is dead on the interference, so the run can't score. Since there was not a play on the runner absent the interference, I'd send her back to 3rd. 2 outs.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by markrischard

Ball is dead on the interference, so the run can't score. Since there was not a play on the runner absent the interference, I'd send her back to 3rd. 2 outs.

If you kill the ball for interference then you have to get the corresponding out.

If the runner at 3B was really alert she would have stayed right on the bag to make sure there was no play to interfere with.

[DTQ_Blue]

Youngump, that would be expecting R@3 to think like an umpire. Perhaps the coach should have known that, but the runner?

[Mountaincoach]

Originally Posted by youngump

If the runner at 3B was really alert she would have stayed right on the bag to make sure there was no play to interfere with.

Why would they stay on the bag after the 1st baseman falls down? What do they have to lose? I can tell you what they have to gain--a run scored if the interference call is not made.

Originally Posted by DTQ_Blue

Youngump, that would be expecting R@3 to think like an umpire. Perhaps the coach should have known that, but the runner?

Agree. Too much to expect from a kid.....and 99% of coaches.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by DTQ_Blue

This

Dead ball INT; BR out, any and all runners return to base held at TOP. Easy peasy.

I can't give you a specific rules cite, as my books are packed, but the Fed Dead Ball Chart in the middle of the book is a great place to start looking for the rule number.

[dlsumpntx]

If interference is called after the catch then it's interference by a retired batter/runner.

[Tru_in_Blu]

This is a case of a retired (batter) runner interfering.

Whenever INT is called, someone has to be out.

The BR was out on the catch by F3, then INT'd.

If INT is called, are we calling it on the BR and just calling her out? This ignores the fact that the catch was made before INT occurred.

If you don't call INT, what rule allows you to send the runner back to third base?

Try NFHS Case Play 8.6.18 Sit. B.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Dead ball INT; BR out, any and all runners return to base held at TOP. Easy peasy.

Runners return at time of INT.

[DTQ_Blue]

Tru n Blue, I read the casebook play (thanks for pointing it out). In that play, the runner, R1, committed to try to score before the BR acted to prevent F3 from making a play on R1. Clearly, the BRs action adversely affected F3 in making that play. In my game, R1 was going nowhere when that catch was made by F3, i.e., no play was in the offing. So the collision did not hinder F3 from making a play on a runner in motion like the casebook example, rather, it allowed R1 to go in motion.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Well, since it was a foul pop up, the runner from third wouldn't (shouldn't) have "been in motion". If anything, she probably retreated to the base in order to tag up.

I agree that on a routine pop up to an infielder, a runner is unlikely to try and tag up.

However, once F3 was wiped out (accidentally, inadvertently, unintentionally), now the runner made the decision to risk advancing. So once the fielder went down, as a result of a retired (batter) runner INT, we have nothing?

So in the case play I referenced, the ruling is:
If, in the umpire's judgment, B2 hindered F3's play on R1, R1 is declared out.

I can't see the defensive coach being quiet about this if the run is allowed to score given that his fielder was knocked over.

And I don't know how you return the runner to third base if INT wasn't called.

So how do you reconcile this?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

If you don't call INT, what rule allows you to send the runner back to third base?

Try NFHS Case Play 8.6.18 Sit. B.

8.6.13.

Since the rule does not specifically address this issue, I could see how this rule could be construed to kill the ball and return runners.

This is admittedly a stretch. Then again if the word "maliciously" was removed from Art 14......but that would also be a stretch.

My issue with the play and applicable rules is that there was no interference. As noted, the runner did not break for home until F3 was knocked to the ground, so at the time of the collision, there was no play with which to interfere.

[DTQ_Blue]

I was PU. Initially, I ruled the ball dead and sent R1 back to 3rd. My partner then approached me and said that that was not the correct call and convinced me to call interference by a retired runner, which meant that R1 was also out.

I agree with you that only because the runner chose to advance after the collision, was the collision interference. If the runner had stayed put, no interference. I didn't like having to make that call, but I think my partner was right, by the book.

If I ever have another play like that, I'd be tempted to just say that the ball was dead at the time of the collision because it was necessary to check on the well-being of F3. Then, I could just put R1 back at 3B.

I know that's stretching things a bit, but I think that interference by a retired BR, with an additional out is unnecessarily punitive, even if its the right call.

[DTQ_Blue]

Irishmafia, could it be said that the collision altered the action of F3 in the immediate act of making a play on BR because F3 had not completed the play on BR (voluntary release of ball from glove) at the time of the collision. The catch had occurred but not the release from glove. That could justify killing the ball.

[CecilOne]

Interference requires a play to be interfered with.

But, the knock down hindered the fielder's ability to make a play on R1 when R1 advanced or even if R1 did not advance. *

Some interference instances have a delayed effect, not necessarily immediate. It looks like this is that type of case and so interference applies.
The call should have been at the moment of collision, then judge whether the possible double play fits.

Hard to call, hard to explain, but "big bucks".


* Think pickoff or throw home to prevent the score.