Interesting play............

[DeputyUICHousto]

rule, dead ball and put runners back. I don't see where this would be interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

No doubt, an INT ruling is going to be based upon the umpire's judgment.

Speaking ASA

INTERFERENCE. The act by an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.


Note, an out need not be imminent.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No doubt, an INT ruling is going to be based upon the umpire's judgment.

Speaking ASA

INTERFERENCE. The act by an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.


Note, an out need not be imminent.

But a play does, and a play means an attempt to retire a runner or BR. The umpire judgment would be... was there a play at the time R1 tapped the ball?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

But a play does, and a play means an attempt to retire a runner or BR. The umpire judgment would be... was there a play at the time R1 tapped the ball?

That is correct, but it is simply an attempt to retire an offensive player, not an imminent out.

And from the OP, apparently there was a play at the plate. And then there is that pesky BR which could have been retired at 3B. Of course, it is all judgment, but sitting at a computer not seeing the field, the fence, speed of the ball & runners, location of the defenders, etc. we really cannot tell.

However, INT cannot be dismissed simply because the offense's transgression resulted in the ball heading toward a defender and I believe that is what some have done in this thread.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

However, INT cannot be dismissed simply because the offense's transgression resulted in the ball heading toward a defender and I believe that is what some have done in this thread.

Agreed.

[wadeintothem]

For ASA Discussion Purposes:

On this play I am judging INT and I believe the only ruling you can support by rule is INT. This is not a blocked ball and I do not think there is justification for only killing the play unless you revert to 10.1 for whatever reason...

I am not nostradamus, so I must factor the fact that a retired offensive player intentionally altered the path of the ball while defense was attempting to make a play and in fact had a play. INT, R2 out, R3 to 2B and I become the hated blue for not the first time and wont be the last. This is Interference, plain and simple.

[Linknblue]

When we call "DEAD BALL!". I've got interference on the "one with the bat" don't we also have an out? Wouldn't that be the closest one to home?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

For ASA Discussion Purposes:

On this play I am judging INT and I believe the only ruling you can support by rule is INT. This is not a blocked ball and I do not think there is justification for only killing the play unless you revert to 10.1 for whatever reason...

I am not nostradamus, so I must factor the fact that a retired offensive player intentionally altered the path of the ball while defense was attempting to make a play and in fact had a play. INT, R2 out, R3 to 2B and I become the hated blue for not the first time and wont be the last. This is Interference, plain and simple.

There is also the point that the offense should know better than to touch a live ball. The offense screwed up this play, not the defense and if there was any possibility that there could have been a play......