B/R Interference?

[jmkupka]

R1 on 3rd, 1 out. Batter hits a hard grounder to F3, who steps on 1B & fires home. B/R, who hasn't yet reached the running lane, is hit with the throw while still running in fair territory. Ball bounces into the infield, R1 scores.
Has the B/R interfered simply by virtue of getting hit after being retired?
I ruled no intentional interference, run scores, 2 out.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

R1 on 3rd, 1 out. Batter hits a hard grounder to F3, who steps on 1B & fires home. B/R, who hasn't yet reached the running lane, is hit with the throw while still running in fair territory. Ball bounces into the infield, R1 scores.
Has the B/R interfered simply by virtue of getting hit after being retired?
I ruled no intentional interference, run scores, 2 out.

Running lane is not a factor on a throw from F3 to F2. If the BR was simply running toward 1st, probably a good call. To quote IRISH, "she can't just disappear after being retired."

[Dholloway1962]

I agree....sounds like a good call, no call, oh hell sounds like you got it right

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by argodad

Running lane is not a factor on a throw from F3 to F2. If the BR was simply running toward 1st, probably a good call. To quote IRISH, "she can't just disappear after being retired."

Yeppers, runner cannot go "POOF"

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by whiskers_ump

Yeppers, runner cannot go "POOF"

You don't work much SP do you???

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

You don't work much SP do you???

This one and one more would make two>

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

R1 on 3rd, 1 out. Batter hits a hard grounder to F3, who steps on 1B & fires home. B/R, who hasn't yet reached the running lane, is hit with the throw while still running in fair territory. Ball bounces into the infield, R1 scores.
Has the B/R interfered simply by virtue of getting hit after being retired?
I ruled no intentional interference, run scores, 2 out.

Trust me I call it that way, but under ASA it is the wrong call. ASA took intention out of the the rules 2 years (2007) ago. If it hits a runner already put out it is interference and you call the runner closest to home out. 8.7.J.3 & 8.7.P

What you make sure you say is that was no interference. If you say that there was no "intentional interference", well that is a easy appeal.

[Dakota]

Regardless of intent, it is softball, not dodgeball. You are incorrect regarding the ASA interpretation, although you exactly reflect the erroneous interpretation I predicted would become rampant once the word "intentional" was removed.

Besides, it is not an appeal. Maybe you mean protest.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by snorman75

Trust me I call it that way, but under ASA it is the wrong call. ASA took intention out of the the rules 2 years (2007) ago. If it hits a runner already put out it is interference and you call the runner closest to home out. 8.7.J.3 & 8.7.P

What you make sure you say is that was no interference. If you say that there was no "intentional interference", well that is a easy appeal.

It is the correct call for ASA. The only way it is not is if the BR does something to actually interfere with the throw. Advancing to 1B by the BR is not an act of interference. When removing the "intent", ASA was relying on their umpires to be intelligent enough to recognize interference and distinguish it from a player just playing.

[wadeintothem]

I agree, you cant use the word intentional when describing this play if you were talking to a coach.

Other than that, looks like the argument is centering on semantics when everyone has the call right.