Strange interference

[oppool]

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

[Gulf Coast Blue]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[oppool]

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

[Dakota]

Originally posted by oppool
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

Don,

Speaking ASA...

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. 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....

Seems pretty clear - intent is required.

I don't call Fed...

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[Dakota]

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]

[Skahtboi]

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

[whiskers_ump]

[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, 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.
----------------------------------------------------------
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

[Gulf Coast Blue]

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.......

However......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

[oppool]

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

[Dakota]

Originally posted by oppool
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.

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

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.

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

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.

[Roger Greene]

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

[SamNVa]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
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

[Roger Greene]

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