Strange interference

[IRISHMAFIA]

[i]

If you will recheck my orginal posting I stated R1 turned and retreated to 1st(continue running)after F6 tags 2nd on the grounder R1 ends up about a step away directly in front of F3 trying to catch the throw while B/R is coming down the 1st base line

It was a strange looking play and dont remember in over the 1000 some games I have called in the last 3years a similiar play to it.
[/B]

Actually, Don, this is also what was stated in the original post

..R1 decides to for some reason turn and run back to 1st after seeing he was going to be put out at 2nd.

And I, probably along with a few others, read this as R1 turned and retreated before F6 actually tagged the base.

Even in the Fed rules that Roger noted, even when running in reverse order, it must still be determined by the umpire that it was done to confuse the defense. That is still something which must be deemed intentional.

[oppool]

Ok to follow up on some points that have been made and some thoughts. Dakota stated on 8.8P a throw on a x-runner has to be made hence a throw was made to the base the x-runner was going to then by rule I have to decide which runner or x-runner F6 was tring to make the play on if this is the case I believe I would still rule the same way because my believe would be I would want to rule on the player that has done something wrong or not normal which I believe would be R1 not F3 on this play BUT......I do see all of your view points and do appreciate the replies. My question still is why does there have to be intentional interference for interference by a x-runner to be ruled?? Why cant there just be interference called with the runner being played on called out??

I want to ask if you would see this play if you would rule any different??

R1 on 2nd and R2 on 1st no outs, B3 hits grounder to F4 who flips to F6 for the force at 2nd, F6 throws to F3 trying for the double play which is late but F3 sees R1 make wide turn at 3rd throws to F5 during this time R2 who is out is trotting back to his 3rd base dugout, R1 who is pretty much a dead duck at this time trys to take off for home as F2 is setup at home to recieve the throw x-R2 who is not paying attention to the play crosses right in front of F2 causing F2 to lose vision of the throw causing the ball to get past F2 on which R1 proceeds to score and the B/R advances to 2nd.

Would you still rule this as not intentional interference or interference because by rules you have stated x-R2 did nothing intentional???


Just some Thoughts as I have stated before I do truly respect all of your opinions and experiences of the game

Thanks

Don

[Edited by oppool on Oct 17th, 2001 at 04:34 AM]

[Dakota]

Don, I'm going to give two separate replies, to your two situations...

Originally posted by oppool
My question still is why does there have to be intentional interference for interference by a x-runner to be ruled?? Why cant there just be interference called with the runner being played on called out??

Here is the way I look at it... The runner has a right to run hard to try to beat any play. Once he is out, he cannot be expected to just disappear - human reaction time is not that fast; he may not hear the umpire's OUT call, he will need time and space to slow to a stop once he realizes he is out, etc., etc.

However, continuing to run is an intentional act! That is, it is not accidental. The judgment is was he continuing to run to try to beat a play on him (however confused he may have been), or was he continuing to run to try to draw a throw, get in the way of a play, or confuse the defense?

In your original play, was your judgment the runner was continuing to run to get in the way of the defensive play? Or, did he just accidently get in the way with dumb base running? You can't get in his head; you have to judge was the runner legitimately trying to return to his original base (as silly as it was, since it was a force out), like he could legally do in a rundown or pickoff play? If so, no interference. On the other hand, if the runner knew (again your judgment, since you can't get in his head) he was out, then his continuing to run (an intentional act) was to try to confuse or to break up the play at first. If that was your judgment, the out was justified.

I follow the "don't guess an out" theory, so I would need to see something to convince me the runner was trying to break up the play; but only you actually saw the play.

To sell your call, all you needed to say was..."In my judgment, the runner knew he was out and reversing direction was an intentional act to try to break up the double play. BR is out."

[Edited by Dakota on Oct 17th, 2001 at 08:42 AM]

[Dakota]

Originally posted by oppool
R1 on 2nd and R2 on 1st no outs, B3 hits grounder to F4 who flips to F6 for the force at 2nd, F6 throws to F3 trying for the double play which is late but F3 sees R1 make wide turn at 3rd throws to F5 during this time R2 who is out is trotting back to his 3rd base dugout, R1 who is pretty much a dead duck at this time trys to take off for home as F2 is setup at home to recieve the throw x-R2 who is not paying attention to the play crosses right in front of F2 causing F2 to lose vision of the throw causing the ball to get past F2 on which R1 proceeds to score and the B/R advances to 2nd.

Would you still rule this as not intentional interference or interference because by rules you have stated x-R2 did nothing intentional???

IMO, the meaning of the word intentional in the rules depends on context - in this case, the context of what has happened and what is happening.

To re-quote the rule (so everyone doesn't have to page back in this thread or dig out the book)..

ASA 8-8
THE RUNNER IS OUT.
P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner...

Was this runner in the heat of a play, where he deserved the benefit of the doubt (e.g. he can't just disappear)? No.

He knew the play was still on-going. He had the choice of many ways to return to his dugout, most of which would have taken him out of the way of the continuing action. His choice of route for returning to the dugout was intentional (i.e. not accidental) and he definitely interfered with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. I'd rule interference in this case.

I am very interested in hearing how others would rule on this play...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Yes, I would rule differently because it is not the same situation.

This is a player who really isn't even an ex-runner. The play involving R2 ended at 2B. The retired runner is not required to get off the field of play in any specific time frame or manner. The only requirement of R2 is to stay away from active play. R2 failed to do this and impeded the defenses ability to make a play on another runner.

R1 is done.