Here's the play: R1 on 1st B2 hits grounder to F6 who tags 2nd and makes his throw to F3 for what looked to be a routine double play till......R1 decides to for some reason turn and run back to 1st after seeing he was going to be put out at 2nd. F3 seeing R1 running back at him and B/R coming down the line flinches and drops the throw. I call "Dead ball R1 out at 2nd on the force and B/R out on the interference call" B/R mister super jock start yelling I am wrong cant be interference by R1 he had no intent he was just too dumb to know better!!


Have a good one guys

Don

Don.......

A runner who has already been put out must do something intentional to be called on interference.......

I would have a hard time selling a double play in ASA on a retired runner who just gave up.......UNLESS you were CERTAIN that the runner did what he/she did as an attempt to prevent a double play......

Don't think so in your case.

JMHO

Joel

Don,

Sorry, but I'm with Joel on this one. R1 did nothing against the rules. It might not have been the smart thing for R1 to do, but if stupidity were against the rules, we would all be doing lawnwork on weekends.

Ok guys it been a while for me to get back on this one but I have been out at the ballfields 12 of the last 13 days BUT.... I disagree with your responses I dont believe that a runner that has been put out has to committ an intentional act to committ interference. That a runner who has been put out has no right to interfer with the fielder who is throwing or in the act of catching the ball there is a different penality if act is intentional which the runner then closest to home is put out but if any offensive player interferes with a play then the runner that is being played on is out.

Is this not correct or should coaches be teaching the runner to continue running in the field of play after being put out??

Just my thoughts

Don

Don,

Speaking ASA...

ASA 8-8
<font color=blue><b>THE RUNNER IS OUT.</b>
P. When, <u>after being declared out</u> or after scoring, a runner <u><big>intentionally</big></u> interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference....</font>

Seems pretty clear - intent is required.

I don't call Fed...

Don,

R1 is permitted to run to 1B if s/he so desires. According to your scenario, R1 had not yet been put out at the time s/he reversed direction, hence this was not a player continuing to run after being retired with the intention of confusing the defense. The runner did nothing inappropriate or in violation of any rule.

A runner is not expected to vaporize once put out. The runner in your scenario was attempting to return to a base, however ill-advised that may have been.

"Intentional" can mean continuing to run, if the purpose of continuing is to draw a throw, but causing a fielder to flinch on catching a thrown ball just by running the bases is not a violation.

[Edited by Dakota on Oct 15th, 2001 at 09:59 AM]

Don,

Short of the runner running directly at the first baseman with his arms waving and him shouting, I will have to agree with the rest of the posters here. There was no interference.

Scott

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
[B]Don,

R1 is permitted to run to 1B if s/he so desires. According to your scenario, R1 had not yet been put out at the time s/he reversed direction, <b>hence this was not a player continuing to run after being retired with the intention of confusing the defense.</b> The runner did nothing inappropriate or in violation of any rule.
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike,
If R1 is retreating back to 1B prior to having been put
out, then maybe s/he was trying to entice defense into
continuing to make a play. Would this be intent? Don
did say runner turned and ran back toward 1B. I agree
with rule cited and that runner must go somewhere, but
normally a retired runner coming from 1B veers towards
the outfield, or on around towards 3B. I might get a bit
nervous and look up and miss throw if I was firstbase
person and saw runners coming from both directions.

Just some other line of thought

glen

100% sure
 

glen........

You are correct.......Don is the only one who saw the play and he made the call........

Sometimes what is written in words cannot be described in enough detail for us to make the call from the other side of the computer screen.........this may be one of them.......

<i>However</i>......the way Don described the play......I would have to have seen something out of the ordinary to make the same call........

He probably would not have brought it up if he was 100% sure of it though............grin.

Joel

Stubborn but....
 

I agree guys its is hard to see a strange play with just words and actually think you have stated my side while disagreeing with me on the call.

Excuse me but I dont know how to do all that fancy copy & paste stuff

But Dakota stated ruling 8.8P which states a runner after being put out continuing to run is a form of intentional interference whether the runner knows better or not doesnt matter.

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.


I do appreciate the replies---Thanks

Don

Just a small (but important) clarification
 

Just continuing to run is not enough. The rule says, "continuing to run <u>and drawing a throw</u>" ...

An example would be if the runner continued to run to 3B, and the fielder, confused as to whether he was out, threw to F5, instead of completing the double play by throwing to F3.

Since the normal play would be for the fielder at second to throw to F3 anyway, I don't see how your runner was drawing a throw, unless the throw was to try to tag the runner out, rather than to F3 to force the batter-runner out.

As has been said, you saw the play. A retired runner running to confuse the defense is an intentional act & would qualify as interference.

However, a confused runner by himself is not interference, even if he causes a fielder to muff a play.

The little "quote" button will copy the message next to the button into your reply with the "Originally posted by..." and formatting stuff.

Other stuff, such as blue fonts and different font sizes, etc. is done with HTML tags. These can be found at various web sites. Try searching for "HTML tags" and see what comes up. I could also email a text file to you with some of them if you want.

If this was Fed there is a rule which states that any runner is out when she runs the bases in reverse in order to confuse the defense or to make a travisity of the game. (I don't have the cite, I loaned by rule book to #3 daughter's coach the other day.) If the umpire was convinced that that was the runner's reason for returning to 1st, it could have been envoked.

Roger Greene,
Member UT

All that you said is true Roger, but that rule (which is 8.4.2q, BTW) says that the runner who runs the bases in reverse in order to confuse the defense is out. It doesn't say anything about a retired runner running the bases in reverse in order. I agree with the others who have said that the runner must do something intentional to interfere with subsequent play in order to get a second out on this play.

SamC

Correct, Sam. I didn't think of that. And, I agree, that there would need to be something intentional.
Roger

Re: Stubborn but....
 

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.

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]

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

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, <u>continuing to run is an intentional act!</u> 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 <u>knew</u> (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]

Retried runner meandering...
 

IMO, the meaning of the word <i>intentional</i> 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
<font color=blue><b>THE RUNNER IS OUT.</b>
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...</font>

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...

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.