retired runner
 

I know this is old business, but have patience. This quote is from an old post about a runner sliding into 2nd and taking out teh SS. I have a couple questions about it.
"... under ASA rules (and NFHS). There, interference by a retired runner must be intentional. Some would say that a pop-up slide was intentional, but as you described it, I don't see that as an intentional act to interfer or to break up a DP. I would have "no call.""

1) Does this still apply in NFHS and ASA?
2) What about an upright runner, forced out 2 - 4 steps from the base?
3) Are the answers to 1 and 2 also true for NCAA?

Not necessarily. There is no required intent when interfering with the fielder attempting to throw the ball. Many get it confused, but that is not the same as interfering with a thrown ball.

Sliding for a base in an effort to reach the base or get out of the way of the defender is fine. However, the pop-up is a good question, though unanswerable without seeing the specific play.
I would assume :) Again, would have to see the play Don't know why they wouldn't be especially since their rules seem to be a bit more liberal than others. Of course, that is subject to change after the next influential coach has this happen to him/her and the umpire doesn't see it the same way.

OK,
I was trying to get a general answer for NCAA and apply the rule myself. Here are the specifics. Runners on 1st and 3rd, batted ball to SS, almost behind 2nd base. F6 fields and runs to 2nd, barely beating R2 who is upright going straight to the base. F6 then tries to throw to 1st and her hand or arm strikes R2 in the face, ball comes loose and both go down. No intent to contact by either player.
To me the question comes down to if and when the retired runner has to "evaporate" or do anything to avoid the fielder. The NCAA book in the runner interference section including A.R 9.13.e; which reads like the same case implies that any prevention of the follow-up play is interference; whether the runner had time to avoid or not.
Is that the actual interpretation?
Is it also the NFHS interpretation?
Please don't answer with HTBT. If not sure of what happened, ask.

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?
<O:p
<O:p
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.
<O:p
<O:p
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.
<O:p
<O:p
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.
<O:p
<O:p
Now I am not sure!<O:p
<O:p
WMB

That's about where I am, causing this topic. I need an NCAA expert answer as well, including the "play available" or not which seems to be different between ASA and NFHS ("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.").

Is the "discrepancy" between rules and cases merely because the cases assume the specifics of the rule have been met and are only providing examples of the physics?

You are correct. I overlooked the "retired" portion of the question

Tips on Interference
 

I found this in the NCAA Umpires Manual:

"Tips on Interference
• To have interference, there must be a possible play.
• The three foot lane keeps the game even. Do not confuse an overthrow with a bad throw.
• If a runner is coming toward a defensive player a throw is not required to have an interference
call.
• If a runner is going away from a defensive player there must be a throw before interference
can be called"

and

"A wreck usually requires no call or signal. If a wreck looks like interference or looks like
obstruction but in your judgment it was neither, then signal Safe and continue with your duties on the play.
By signaling Safe, you tell the teams that you have seen the action, you have made a judgment on the action, and you have determined that no violation occurred. Be prepared, at the end of playing action, to explain your judgment."

I guess five days of no response means there is no answer.

Cecil - a suggestion:

Go to www.cactusumpires.com and post the question on the message board there. Emily regularly reads and responds to the questions posted.

I would catagorize Emily as an NCAA (and FED and ASA) rules expert!

Notice that just before the section that you refer to above, the NCAA rulebook also includes the following note:

If both players actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is inadvertant contact and neither interference nor obstruction.

To me, this places your question firmly in the realm of "judgement." Do you feel that the runner had time to "evaporate," as you put it? If so, then you would rule INT. If the runner, again in your judgement, did nothing intentional to interfere and had no time to alter her course, then your ruling would be inadvertant contact, which of course, has no penalty.

Does this help at all?

A pop up slide to me is obvious interference .
Why else would they pop up but to cause int .

I would suspect they pop up to be in position to advance more quickly on a misplay by the defense. Is the offense expected to assume the defense will always make the play? Or to proceed to their best advantage if a misplay is actually made?

Not being smart, Debeau; I think it is a fair question if you assume it is interference.

Clarification .
We are talking a close play here .
A pop up on a vey close play will most certainly be interference .
Obviously I havnt made my mind up until the play happens and it would have to be a decision made at that moment but I would be looking for it .

Then again, considering the skill of most players today, many, if not most, do not know how to properly slide and it may be a matter of the runner using the base as a brake.

Now thats interesting Mike and I hadnt even thought of it .
The out occurs with a pop up slide , we have to decide if it is intentional .
As you said Mike players use it as a brake and if the INT is accidental because of this , no outs . An out only occurs if the INT is intentional .
More to ponder upon and different aspects of the game to look at depending on the level of play .