Contact at 1B when F3 running to bag
 

I have had this happen several times already this year on ground balls to F3 where F3 when racing to beat the runner to 1B will cross over the bag and there will be a collision between F3 and BR. I have just been calling it a "train wreck", but since it seems to be happening often I am wondering if I am missing a call here.

Any thoughts?

Don't know what else you could call it. BR is running to orange bag, following his allowed path, and has no obligation to do anything other than not interfere on the white bag. Once F3 beats BR to the base, BR is a retired runner, and you have to have intent to have interference on a retired runner.

I can't see penalizing the offense because F3 can't run to the base without crossing into the BR's expected (and required) path). Only way I see a call is if F3 and BR make contact before the base; in that case, we have a collision with a defensive player with the ball and a BR; BR must slide or otherwise be accountable to avoid interference.

Calling safe or out will probably be better. :D

Just kidding. I agree that a trainwreck is about all you could call it.

Reminds me of a umpire clinician that once mentioned in jest that on the next bang-bang play we had we should just call, "TIE!" and let the team's figure out what to do.

That goes against my telling them that there is no such animal as a TIE.

Aaahhh....should we go there?

"Intent" isn't necessary to call interference on a retired runner.

Now we are back to the old question about whether a retired runner or an "about to be retired" runner needs to evaporate to avoid contact.

Why not? .... (extra, superfluous, text so my reply is not ejected for being too short...)

Speaking ASA

That would depend on what form of interference occured. If a thrown ball, there must be intent.

My point exactly.

Exactly? A thrown ball is only one. Also, intent is required for a retired runner interfering with a defender's opportunity to make a play on another runner. What form did you have in mind where intent is not required that applies to the situation being discussed in this thread?

I'm going to have a hard time getting intent on a play like this unless the BR veers into the fielder. If the BR is running within the confines of the rules trying to get to 1B before the fielder, it is the fielder who in my opinion is responsible for the contact for coming across the bag.