USA Softball - Interference - Thrown ball

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I don't think we can call a runner out for INT because we think she "wasn't in the right place".

And your response to my "SITUATION 3" above? The only reason "after being declared out" in the situation matters is to determine which runner(s) is(/are) called out (it has no bearing on whether the runner has the right to be there or not). The runner in that situation had far better reason to be where she was than a runner in the middle of the diamond.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by EricH

And your response to my "SITUATION 3" above? The only reason "after being declared out" in the situation matters is to determine which runner(s) is(/are) called out (it has no bearing on whether the runner has the right to be there or not). The runner in that situation had far better reason to be where she was than a runner in the middle of the diamond.

First of all, situation 3 is dealing with a retired runner (i.e. not a runner).

Secondly, the retired runner committed an act of interference.

Thirdly, by inference, when the runner committed said act of interference, it did have a bearing on whether the runner had the right to be where she ended up. (Hint: She didn't.)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

First of all, situation 3 is dealing with a retired runner (i.e. not a runner).

That does not matter. The rule does not differentiate between a runner or a retired runner except to determine which runner ends up being called out. The rule states "the runner is out...when the runner interferes...." There is not a separate rule for retired runners. Only the EFFECT is different because you can't call a retired runner out.

Secondly, the retired runner committed an act of interference.

The retired runner ran back to the dugout. This is splitting hairs that you earlier didn't like me doing.

Thirdly, by inference, when the runner committed said act of interference, it did have a bearing on whether the runner had the right to be where she ended up. (Hint: She didn't.)

The runner did have a right to be where she was; she just didn't have a right to do what she did. It was her "act," not her location, that got her in trouble. If she had stood still where she was, I guarantee the result of the play would have been no interference.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by EricH

That does not matter. The rule does not differentiate between a runner or a retired runner except to determine which runner ends up being called out. The rule states "the runner is out...when the runner interferes...." There is not a separate rule for retired runners. Only the EFFECT is different because you can't call a retired runner out.

Well, I don't have the rule book in front of me since I'm on travel right now. But I'm pretty sure there is a separate rule that deals with retired runners. It says something like, "When after being put out or after scoring, a player interferes with the defense's opportunity to make a play on another runner." It is a little more open-ended to interpretation on what that retired runner does, regardless of intent.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Well, I don't have the rule book in front of me since I'm on travel right now. But I'm pretty sure there is a separate rule that deals with retired runners. It says something like, "When after being put out or after scoring, a player interferes with the defense's opportunity to make a play on another runner." It is a little more open-ended to interpretation on what that retired runner does, regardless of intent.

Nope. It's part of the same rule. Simply says if the runner is already out, the runner nearest home at the time of the interference is called out.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by EricH

Nope. It's part of the same rule. Simply says if the runner is already out, the runner nearest home at the time of the interference is called out.

Now that I have the rule book in front of me:

Rule 8, Section 7P: "When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner who is entitled to run on the dropped third strike rule.

Effect: "1: The ball is dead. 2: The runner closest to home is out. 3: Runners must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference."

It's not part of the same rule. Rule 8, Section 7J covers interference by an active runner, 7P a retired runner.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It's not part of the same rule. Rule 8, Section 7J covers interference by an active runner, 7P a retired runner.

It is part of the same rule, 8.7, the runner is out. That's what I meant. But you're right.