Interference/Lunch Bet

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I can't speak for NFHS, but in ASA, if there's no possible play on R1, there's no INT call. If, as a result of F3 being down on the ground, R1 advances to HP, then you would have INT.

I can't imagine NFHS would be that different from ASA, but seeing as how I don't call NFHS, I'll let the NFHS guys confirm it.

Yup. They are pretty much the same.

[tmielke]

I think that I am getting the free lunch.

This scenario happened in one of my daughters HS games last May.

My daughter was the girl rounding third at the time of the interference. The interference did prevent the play on my daughter at home, so she should have been out as well.

The umpire never killed the play on the interference call, and my daughter scored. They didn't put her on third or call her out! My view was she was out automatically as the play was prevented. To top it off the opposing coach never complained.

My bet over lunch was, is she out automatically as the play was prevented or can the umpire judge whether she would have been out if the play was made. This isn't clear in the OP.

[DaveASA/FED]

The answer to your specific question is she is out automatically if the umpire judges there was a chance to make a play on the (any other) runner. As the rule was quoted it is interference on the chance to make a play on another runner, NOT the chance to get an out on the other runner. So if there is judgement that the fielder had a chance to throw home to make a play on R1 then she is out whether it was likely there would have been an actual out on R1 or not.

[Dholloway1962]

8.6.18 in NFHS Case book situations A & B do not deal with "intentional" interference by base runner.

Sit. A...R1 on 3rd. B2 hits to SS who throws home. Catcher can't make play and R1 scores. Catcher then tries to throw to 2nd to get B2 out. R1 runs into Catcher "after R1 has crossed plate causing her to drop the ball". Ruling runs scores..if umpire judgement says the interference prevented B2 from being put out the umpire will call her out.

Sit. B also states it is umpires judgement on a non-intentional interference.

NFHS (and ASA for that matter) is contradicting itself. In my not so honorable opinion, NFHS should take the guess work out and make the runner closest to home out if retired runner or runner who already scored interferes PERIOD.

ASA took out the intentional part of the rule as should NFHS.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

8.6.18 in NFHS Case book situations A & B do not deal with "intentional" interference by base runner.

Sit. A...R1 on 3rd. B2 hits to SS who throws home. Catcher can't make play and R1 scores. Catcher then tries to throw to 2nd to get B2 out. R1 runs into Catcher "after R1 has crossed plate causing her to drop the ball". Ruling runs scores..if umpire judgement says the interference prevented B2 from being put out the umpire will call her out.

Sit. B also states it is umpires judgement on a non-intentional interference.

NFHS (and ASA for that matter) is contradicting itself. In my not so honorable opinion, NFHS should take the guess work out and make the runner closest to home out if retired runner or runner who already scored interferes PERIOD.

ASA took out the intentional part of the rule as should NFHS.

So you are saying that a runner should just go "poof" and disappear once she touches the plate? BTW, B2 was the runner closest to home.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So you are saying that a runner should just go "poof" and disappear once she touches the plate? BTW, B2 was the runner closest to home.

Not sure which part I misspoke on but that wasn't what I meant...I meant if a runner alreay put out or runner already scored interferes, either intentionally or unintentionally, the runner closest to home should be called out. When they ask umpires to judge whether or not a play could be made is too much guesswork.

Hope that clears up what I meant to say.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

When they ask umpires to judge whether or not a play could be made is too much guesswork.

First of all, that is what we are paid to do, make calls based on our judgement. It really isn't difficult at all, in most cases, to decide whether or not a play could have been made. There are those rules in every rule code of which I am aware that ask us to make this type of decision.