Dead ball question

[AtlUmpSteve]

ASA 8-7.P makes it interference if an already retired or scored runner intentionally interferes; ASA 8-7.O makes it interference if a coach intentionally interferes. 8-7.O makes it clear that if the ball unintentionally hits the coach, it is not interference; and we know an unintentional hitting of the coach is not a blocked ball, it remains live. Base coaches are "engaged in the game", and are given (my words) certain partial immunity from accidental interference (other than keeping a fielder from fielding a batted ball for an out).

We also state that runners that are put out are not expected to go "poof"; they are there engaged in the game, at least until they are out, and have (again, my words) partial immunity from accidental interference. Using an expected (if not specified) consistency, I have to conclude that an equally unintentional hitting of a retired runner would also not be a blocked ball, and the ball would remain live. Retired runners are, in my mind, also engaged in the game to some degree; they are expected to be on the field, but they cannot interfere with impunity. Just as the coaching box and batters box are not safe havens, there are no safe havens defined for retired runners; but they don't go poof.

Now, I will extend my personal definition of intentional in these cases to include failing to avoid or failing to attempt to avoid if either are reasonably to be expected; but don't believe I have a blocked ball here without interference.

JMO; no black and white support available either way.

[Steve M]

I agree with Steve's explanation and also think it's relevant to note that this situation was caused by a badly thrown ball by the defense. That's another part of the reasoning why I most likely have nothing but a live ball.

[topper]

I second Steve's agreement with Steve.

[bkbjones]

Blocked ball...one of my favorite rules. Unlike the "look back" rule, the blocked ball rule has stayed true to its century-plus-old roots.

[robbie]

If this were to cause a dead ball, it would sent the game to "kick ball" status.
Runners running around the bases? Simply fire one at the retired BR and all will stop....................... I think not. Therefore, no blocked ball, no interference, no dead ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

ASA 8-7.P makes it interference if an already retired or scored runner intentionally interferes; ASA 8-7.O makes it interference if a coach intentionally interferes. 8-7.O makes it clear that if the ball unintentionally hits the coach, it is not interference; and we know an unintentional hitting of the coach is not a blocked ball, it remains live. Base coaches are "engaged in the game", and are given (my words) certain partial immunity from accidental interference (other than keeping a fielder from fielding a batted ball for an out).

We also state that runners that are put out are not expected to go "poof"; they are there engaged in the game, at least until they are out, and have (again, my words) partial immunity from accidental interference. Using an expected (if not specified) consistency, I have to conclude that an equally unintentional hitting of a retired runner would also not be a blocked ball, and the ball would remain live. Retired runners are, in my mind, also engaged in the game to some degree; they are expected to be on the field, but they cannot interfere with impunity. Just as the coaching box and batters box are not safe havens, there are no safe havens defined for retired runners; but they don't go poof.

Now, I will extend my personal definition of intentional in these cases to include failing to avoid or failing to attempt to avoid if either are reasonably to be expected; but don't believe I have a blocked ball here without interference.

JMO; no black and white support available either way.

I don't disagree with anything Steve has posted. However, my opinion is based upon these five simple words "heading back to the dugout".

Even if you consider the retired player still engaged in the game, then they need to be "engaged" in the game. A retired offensive player has an obligation to be aware of and avoid being involved with continuing play. Being put out does not give a player Carte Blanche to just pop up and go to wherever it is s/he wants to go.

If a runner was forced at 2B on the front end of a 6-4-3 double play, popped up and enroute to the 3B dugout was hit by a throw back to pick-off a runner on 3B, we would be calling interference. If the catcher was chasing the ball and got tangled up with the retired player keeping her from making a play with a runner on the move, would that also be a live ball and play on?

We are not discussing a coach or runner going "poof" in the base line as the rules protect them because they are where they are supposed to be. Even the ODB stationed in a designated area is not protected and must avoid interfering with a live ball.

I can probably offer a dozen or more "what ifs", but there is no reason to waste the keystrokes.

Obviously, every scenario is an HTBT situation, but in this case, based on the information given, I'll stand on the blocked ball.

[AtlUmpSteve]

HTBT, absolutely. That's the "partial immunity". We don't seem to be disgreeing on the concept, just how we envision the described play in the OP.

When I think NFHS slowpitch, I think a fairly small field, at least so far as foul ball territory in the infield. I envision the overthrow of 1st traveling 10-15 feet beyond F3 when it hits the retired BR, who had little or no opportunity to react, and no reason to not head toward her dugout entrance after the fly is caught.

It seems like you envision a more open field with more foul ball territory, a retired batter-runner paying no attention and just wandering aimlessly in foul ball territory without paying attention, that had plenty of chance to avoid the overthrow, but didn't.

HTBT.

[Dukat]

I wish I could describe it better. The BR was not paying attention to the play at all and while not "wandering aimlessly", I thought she could have made it back into the dugout in time and or if she was paying attention could have possibly avoided the throw. With that thought we let the play finish and then got together and decided that the retired BR should have avoided the ball and had the ball not went off her leg that the play would have ended there so we put the runner back on 1st.

Now, reading through this, we may have made a mistake. Thank goodness it did not end up affecting the game as that is the last thing I would have wanted. It was a playoff game and both my partner and I were wanting to make sure to get everything right and at the time we thought we made the best call we could.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by Dukat

decided that the retired BR should have avoided the ball and had the ball not went off her leg that the play would have ended there so we put the runner back on 1st....

Now, reading through this, we may have made a mistake.

Don't know why you thought you made a mistake. If you truly thought she should have avoided it, you got it right by making her go back to 1B. No one on this message board was there but you. Sounds like to me you nailed it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

HTBT, absolutely. That's the "partial immunity". We don't seem to be disgreeing on the concept, just how we envision the described play in the OP.

When I think NFHS slowpitch, I think a fairly small field, at least so far as foul ball territory in the infield. I envision the overthrow of 1st traveling 10-15 feet beyond F3 when it hits the retired BR, who had little or no opportunity to react, and no reason to not head toward her dugout entrance after the fly is caught.

It seems like you envision a more open field with more foul ball territory, a retired batter-runner paying no attention and just wandering aimlessly in foul ball territory without paying attention, that had plenty of chance to avoid the overthrow, but didn't.

HTBT.

I don't think it is so much about avoiding being involved in the play as opposed to being cognizant to avoid being involved in the play. Everyone in playable territory whether defenders, runners, batters, ODB, retired runners, coaches and even players warming up in an open bull pen area inside the fences have an obligation to be aware of all play and their responsibilities. Obviously, this is something that is coached even with rec youth ball.

I think you need to be consistant. Like I said, if the player kept a fielder from getting the ball for a play, it is INT. If the errant throw is heading toward the fence/backstop where the catcher is waiting for ball and kicks off the retired player enroute to the dugout and goes through a dugout gate, you will have a serious discussion with at least one coach no matter how you rule. So, why leave the ball live?

Is my blocked ball ruling a survival call? I guess you could look at it that way, but it is supported by rule, not something I am ad libbing.