Your call

[gsf23]

Guys, I don't think A. is questioning the call of interference. I think the problem is calling the runner out because of it since there was no intent.

I think everyone here agrees with the call of interference, the question is what should the penalty be? Call R2 out like this umpire did, or just return players to base at time of interference.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by gsf23
Guys, I don't think A. is questioning the call of interference. I think the problem is calling the runner out because of it since there was no intent.

I think everyone here agrees with the call of interference, the question is what should the penalty be? Call R2 out like this umpire did, or just return players to base at time of interference.

With ASA (don't know about ISF), if the offense commits interference, someone is always out. Exceptions include some cases of spectator interference and umpire interference. But, if the interference is committed by a member of the offensive team or personnel, someone is declared out.

[Steve M]

Originally posted by Antonella
Mmmm...
Better clarify a bit more the 'hit bit a thrown ball' situation, here.
R1 was not looking at the play... R1 just found the ball (overthrow) between her feet! 'Intentionally' to me means other than this.

And this is very important. Because Rulebook (again: ISF) require precisely INTENT to rule an out for interference on a THROWN ball.

Is it the same in ASA?

A.

A - As Mike pointed out, this runner has scored and no longer has the rights & so on of a runner. This scored runner is an offensive team member who is on the field - like a coach who is out of the coaching box. It is R1's responsibility to not interfere.

Another sanctioning body will tell you (my words, not theirs) that these are ball players, treat them as ball players. They know what they are doing. When they do something on the field - even if because of being inattentive - know that they intended to do whatever they did. For many high school players and all players beyond high school age, I agree with that approach - so, I would most likely see intent on the part of R1 in A's play.

[Antonella]

Originally posted by gsf23
Guys, I don't think A. is questioning the call of interference. I think the problem is calling the runner out because of it since there was no intent.
I think everyone here agrees with the call of interference, the question is what should the penalty be? Call R2 out like this umpire did, or just return players to base at time of interference.[/B]

You got EXACTLY the point.
IMO I would have returned both R2 and B1 on bases.

BUT this can't be correct SINCE I was taught every time you rule an interference there must be an OUT. And Steve M pointed out this also.

A.

P.S. My NAME is Antonella.

[debeau]

Antonella
A rule of thumb is everytime you have interference you have an out .
In your case ISF Rule 8 9 n
The runner is out
When after a runner or batter runner has scored the runner interferes with a defensive players opportunity to make a play on another runner .
Note : The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference will be called out .
So the call was correct .
Note also no intent is required here , accidental or not it is interference .

[Antonella]

Debeau,

you solve ALL with this! That's the rule I was looking for!
THANK YOU SO MUCH!

A.

P.S. I had the honour to work with Wayne Saunders here in Italy (Europe Olympic Qualifier 2003 - Macerata) are you in contact with him? If so tell him a big CIAO from Antonella!

[debeau]

Hello Antonella
Yes I see and work with Wayne 3 or 4 tournaments a year and talk at a few seminars .
I will see him next month and say hello for you .