Strange interference

[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]