Retired runner INT?
NFHS:
Was there a case play to cover this: R1 on 1B, B2 hits a grounder to F5, F5 throws to F4 for the force out and F4 immediately throw and hits R1 in the noggin. I remember reading a case play that says this is not INT and it remains a live ball but, since NFHS left arbiter, I cannot find anything. (it is not in the 2020 book) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
My 2 cents.
Barring intent, it’s never interference if one is hit by a thrown ball. |
Quote:
She showed no real intent to interfere. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, she really just unknowingly put herself in the wrong place at the wrong time. But she prevented the throw from getting to F2 to make a play on the runner. Is this interference? You betcha. |
Quote:
If the one originally posed isn't a clear enough case of the latter because she could see the ball coming, how about this one: 1-hopper batted to 1B, fielded there. R1 with her back to the play doesn't know F3 hasn't touched the base. F3 throws to F4, and R1 does a quick turnaround to try to get back to 1B, where she thinks she'd be safe. F4 tags her in the back but she doesn't feel it, only the umpire sees the ball touch her shirt. Then F4, knowing the BR is still forced, attempts a throw that hits the already-retired runner in the back. |
Quote:
Quote:
The play that keeps being brought up every year (there's even a video of it from a HS game in NJ) is the one like the OP where R1 is retired at second base on the front end of the DP, and then when F4 turns to throw to first base, R1 is still upright very close to second base and gets hit with the throw. Many umpires argue that R1 did nothing wrong, that she just can't disappear after being retired, or some other argument to claim there was no interference. But to me, the "very common" move that R1 should execute in this play is sliding into second base. Going in standing up on such as close force play at second is not good fundamental softball. It shows no intent to get to the bag safely. Frankly, I even feel that when a runner does that, she IS intent on hindering F4's throw to first. Even the NCAA feels that way, given this case play: Quote:
|
"Frankly, I even feel that when a runner does that, she IS intent on hindering F4's throw to first."
That is exactly my point - The rule does not call for intentional, but you deem it as such and thus call it. Likewise, if the retired BR "trots across the diamond to go into her dugout on the third-base side while F8 throws home to make a play on the tagging runner" - the only way Im calling that is IF I think he / she was there intentionally AND interfered. Step further, BR obviously realizes the potential to interfere so she purposely runs faster to the 3b side of field and the "bad" throw hits her. No way is that interference. No we are into judging whether throw are "good" or not. One still has to interfere for there to be interference. Being hit by a thrown ball cannot be deemed interference in itself. |
Quote:
But being hit by a thrown ball that directly prevents a potential play by the defense is gonna be interference, whether the retired runner did something intentional or not. You cannot offer to the defensive head coach, "Well, the retired runner didn't intend to get hit by that throw." Again, intent is not relevant. Here's another one in the realm of the possibility. R1 at third and R2 at first. Batter bunts the ball back to F1, and there's no play to be made on R1, so F1 throws the BR out. R2 never hesitates on her way from first to third, and F3 throws to F5, but the ball is in the dirt and trickles away from F5. R2 gets up from her slide and tries to score as F5 chases the ball down. R1 who already scored was on her way to the third base dugout when she realized the bat was still near home, so she turns back to get it. She's oblivious to the fact that her teammate is trying to score. She picks up the bat and starts to head to the dugout, and puts herself right in the path of F5's throw home to play on R2. The ball hits R1 in the helmet. Intent? No. Interference? Absolutely. |
Let's go back to the OP.
NFHS interpretations have historically followed ASA (now USA) any time there wasn't a clear rule or case play distinction. In this case, that has meant: Runners are expected to attempt to advance to be safe at the next base; doing that, and only that, isn't interference. Once put out (and acknowledging they don't immediately disappear in that instant), they are obligated to "not interfere". That means: If the runner is out and struck by an immediate throw while properly attempting to advance directly to the base, that isn't interference. If the runner veers into a path where struck by the throw, intentionally or NOT ("she was trying to avoid"), that IS interference. A runner that stays up (rather than slide) probably ISN'T trying to advance safely, and could easily be considered interfering. In these other scenarios, use the "reasonable man" theory. If a runner could have avoided interfering and didn't, that's interference. If a defender would reasonably mistake a retired runner for an active runner, that's interference. The "runner didn't know" isn't a defense, that's why they have base coaches; once retired, the onus is on the runner to NOT interfere, just like the onus is on the defense to not obstruct. |
Quote:
Seems to me somebody has to be screwed by the physics of the situation. Either the runner has to sacrifice the advantage of running vs. sliding, or the fielder has a body in or near the line of the likely throw. If Fed wants the screwing to fall on the runners that's fine, but it should be recognized that it is a screwing nevertheless. |
Quote:
The next time I hear a coach yell at his/her runner, "Next time go in standing up so that you can make it to third quicker should the ball get through!" will be the first time. |
What about this one.
R1 on first, B2 hits a hard grounder to F6 who is shaded up the middle. R1 knows she will clearly be out, as F6 will reach the bag when R1 is about halfway to 2nd. Knowing this, R1 steps out of the base path towards the middle of the infield. F6's throw is such that it hits R1. The throw (1) would have or (2) would not have pulled F3 off the base, as she attempted to catch the throw? R1 is attempting to avoid interfering with the throw, and a somewhat errant throw from F6 to F3 hit R1. |
Quote:
But if F6 didn't go to second base, and she throws the ball directly to first from where she fielded it, then R1 deviating into the path of the throw can be easily judged as a runner intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. At that point, R1 is still a runner, and not a retired runner, so interference with a thrown ball requires intent. And if she deviated towards the middle of the infield instead of running directly to second, then it's going to look intentional. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06am. |