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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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!

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 .