Retired runner INT?

[jwwashburn]

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)

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

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)

It partly depends on what the runner does relative to normal path to base, moving toward the throwing lane, etc. There is a long topic somewhere on this forum, I think.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

It partly depends on what the runner does relative to normal path to base, moving toward the throwing lane, etc. There is a long topic somewhere on this forum, I think.

Be careful here. NFHS removed the reference of "intentionally interferes" in rule 8-6-16c back in 2012. Now it just reads, "After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner." Your mentioning that the runner moving toward the throwing lane implies intent to interfere, which has not been a criterion for quite a while now.

[robbie]

My 2 cents.
Barring intent, it’s never interference if one is hit by a thrown ball.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by robbie

My 2 cents.
Barring intent, it’s never interference if one is hit by a thrown ball.

Runner at third, no outs. Fly ball to center. F8 makes the catch. Retired batter 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. Ball hits the retired batter when she's between the circle and home plate.

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Runner at third, no outs. Fly ball to center. F8 makes the catch. Retired batter 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. Ball hits the retired batter when she's between the circle and home plate.

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.

OK, so there we have one "extreme", which may be summarized as "player doing some action not common to the game" and thereby interfering with play. But what about the opposite extreme, wherein the retiree does some action very common to the game, and gets in the way of the ball?

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.

[chapmaja]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

I'm having a hard time envisioning your play. Did F6 actually step on second base? If so, how the heck does her throw to F3 hit the retired R1 who steps towards the middle of the infield? That would be a horribly bad throw.

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I'm having a hard time envisioning your play. Did F6 actually step on second base? If so, how the heck does her throw to F3 hit the retired R1 who steps towards the middle of the infield? That would be a horribly bad throw.

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.

Chapmaja needs to clarify the situation. Was F6 trying to take advantage of R1's abandonment of baserunning by throwing directly to 1B?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Chapmaja needs to clarify the situation. Was F6 trying to take advantage of R1's abandonment of baserunning by throwing directly to 1B?

I was thinking of it as, yes F6 did step on 2nd base, thus R1 is a retired runner.

And yes, it would be a terrible throw, thus the second part of the question about pulling F3 off the base in receiving the throw?

[Cecil4]

I am back.
I used to be CecilOne, but lost my password.
Very frustrating without a forum I enjoy and rely on for help. After a year of trying, I ended up having to create a new id; so CecilOne is now Cecil4.

I hope a lot of people I remember are still active.
I already see a couple familiar ids. As always, I'll have lots to say.

This was the last topic I posted before the problem.