retired runner

[WestMichBlue]

Mike: Not necessarily. There is no required intent when interfering with the fielder attempting to throw the ball

ASA 8-7 P “A (retired) runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.” Same as NFHS 8-6.18

Cecil: Is it also the NFHS interpretation?


While both rulebooks say that interference must be intentional, both casebooks turn around and indicate that simply interfering with the opportunity to make a play on another runner is called Interference – without judging intent. ASA 8.8.53 and NFHS 8.6.18 Sit A discuss a runner crossing the plate and then contacting the catcher who is trying to throw out another runner. ASA automatically says Dead Ball, call Interference. NFHS says to call interference if the umpire judged the interference prevented the other runner from being put out. No judgment of intent.

ASA 8.8.52 describes a force at 2B and the (retired) runner interferes with F6’s throw to 1B. What is F6’s throw? Is it the ball? Or F6 throwing? If it is the ball, then getting drilled between the eyes would interfere with the throw, wouldn’t it? Either way, it is automatic dead ball, no intent judged.


NFHS 8.6.18 Sit B has a throw to 1B beating the B-R, but then F3 has to step two steps into fair territory to make a throw to home on a runner trying to score from 3B. If the umpire judged that (retired) B-R hindered F3’s play on runner at home, then call interference.


Reading these case plays would seem to contradict the interpretations we have voiced on this forum repeatedly that a retired runner should not be forced to suddenly disappear. If the runner did not have adequate time to avoid the fielder making a play on another runner, we were not going to call interference if the play could not be executed.


Now I am not sure!

WMB