R1 on 3rd base, R2 on 2nd. B1 get a hit to the outfield.
R1 crosses home plate and then (on her way back to the dugout) ACCIDENTALLY kick the ball.
It was an overthrow and the catcher was prevented to go for the ball in the backstop zone.
This doesn’t mean she was able to make an out on the subsequent runner or other (B1).
Then R2 crosses the plate, too. And B1 ends on 2nd.

This situation really happened last week and the umpire decided to kill the play and rule ‘Dead ball’ at the moment R1 kicked the ball.
R1 scores regularly, so no penalty on her.
Then the ump put B1 back on first base and declared R2 out because of the interference.

Opinions and suggestions welcome.

A.

I have no problem with this ruling. Just because a runner scores does not absolve them from the responsibility of staying out of the way and not affecting further play. When I played (often) and scored (well, maybe not as often), the first thing I would do when I touched the plate was locate the ball.

Thanks a lot for your promp reply, Mike.
I discuss this with this friend of mine, the umpire involved in that game. He told me he had no problems after his ruling. And that's fine with me, too.
But as far as I know there's no rule (ISF Rulebook) to call R2 out. I only found a rule that states all runners must return to the last base touched at the moment of the interference when interf. is made by 'next batter or another member of the offensive team not involved in the play' (translation is mine, so can't be accurate :) ).
And that's WHY I was looking (as usual) for some help: maybe you've got a specific rule in ASA....
Plus, some other umpires here are assuming this situation CAN'T be interference and it is the same as a runner (e.g. stealin' 2nd base) is hit by a thrown ball...
I do not agree with this last opinion...

Am I botherin' you too much?

Thanks

A.

May be way off base here, but no intent by ex-runner to interfer with the ball,
it just happened to be where it should not. I don't see an out for interference.

JMHO

You are right: no intent.
Contact with the ball is accidental.
But this simple circustamce cannot change the evidence.
I'm referring to the definition of 'Interference' here....
R1 hinders the catcher to get the ball. And that can't be a 'ball remains alive' situation...

A.

What if the runner scored and instead of walking behind the catcher, walked in front of her and was hit with the throw to the plate.

Not intentional, but certainly could have prevented F2 from making a play or out on another active runner. Would you still not call interference?

Interference doesn't have to be intentional...good call!

Mike,

Depends. If runner appeared to just be doing her job, going back to dugout then probably
not. Would have to be there to see it. Runner would be concreting on being sure to touch
HP, and not where catcher was.
HTBT I guess.

Maybe you misunderstood what I said. I'm talking about a runner who has scored. Touching the plate is not an issue here. She is past the plate, play on her is over and instead of returning to the dugout behind the catcher, walks in front of her and gets hit by the throw to prevent R2 from scoring.

BTW, what is the runner doing pouring concrete? I don't believe returning to the dugout is part of a player's responsibility as much as it is to get out off the way, just as a bat boy or ODB would.

Instead of looking at 8.7.P, look at 8.7.N. Is it possible that may apply?

In the situation, the runner who has scored was intentionally going where she was going, and it had nothing to do with her duties as a runner (since they were completed). Interference does seem to be the correct call, and either rule can apply, it seems to me. Perhaps 8-7-N is an easier fit, since intent is not required, and the runner does fit within the rule.

As regards the international rules, I don't have their rule book, but you should be looking in the EFFECT section of the interference rules where the offensive personnel interfering cannot be called out (coach, on-deck-batter, bench personnel, retired runner, etc.). There it will probably say the runner closest to home will be declared out.

I agree with the ruling. R1, who has already scored, now has they duty to stay out of the play - other than to indicate slide or stand to R2 if R2 decides to go home. R1 was able to put one foot in front of the other - and did that intentionally - I'd be inclined to look at R1's actions as intending to walk where she did - and that's intent. But, with either of the 8.7 articles, R2 is out on the interference.

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.

ASA 8.7.J.4 does require intent for there to be interference with a thrown ball.

By a runner.

Not sure why she is working conrete on a hot day likes this. :D

However, I like this:

<b>That's what I'll try to get done. Cannot expect the player legally advancing to avoid something they most likely never saw coming.</b>
__________________
Mike Rowe
ASA Umpire

She was leagally advancing to the dugout. :)