Interference, DP situation

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by fiasco

R1 at 1st base, BR hits grounder to F4 who tosses to F6, who puts out R1 at second.

R1 is a slow runner and is only 2/3 of the way to 2nd base when he's put out but proceeds to trot to 2nd base even after he's put out. Because of the angle, F6 is unable to make a throw to F3 for the second out of the DP.

I'm thinking this is interference and BR should be out, no? What responsibility does R1 have for getting out of the way once he's called out?

This is nothing. It is not INT, the runner was doing exactly what the runner is supposed to do. AT NO TIME, is a runner required to move out of the way simply because the defense retired them. If anything, moving out of the way and interfering with the defense IS an act of INT.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This is nothing. It is not INT, the runner was doing exactly what the runner is supposed to do. AT NO TIME, is a runner required to move out of the way simply because the defense retired them. If anything, moving out of the way and interfering with the defense IS an act of INT.

I once saw an INT call when the runner into 2nd was so close at the time of the put out, F6 hit the runner with her arm in the throwing motion. Later ruled correct by an interpreter, apparently because of being upright.

[greymule]

Some rec slow pitch leagues have rules . . .

You can plug in all sorts of stuff there! We could hold a contest for "most outrageous local SP rule."

For some reason, many lower-level SP players think that a retired runner has a responsibility to disappear into thin air. Certainly in CecilOne's situation, though, it's INT.

Somewhere I have a clip of Dizzy Dean running straight up into a shortstop right at the bag, thus preventing a double play. As was the custom in the 1930s, however, that was a no call. I don't know what you had to do in the "old days" to get called for INT. Guys used to crash shortstops ten feet wide of the bag and get away with it.

So McCarver said the batter should be called for OBS? Not surprised. Tommy Lasorda claimed that Reggie Jackson should have been called for OBS for sticking his hip into that throw in the World Series.

I think that some people use the word obstruction simply because they think it sounds more official and technical and thus gives them credibility. Sort of like the people who consistently insert "whom" where "who" belongs, thinking they will sound educated.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by greymule

Sort of like the people who consistently insert "whom" where "who" belongs, thinking they will sound educated.

Of whom are you speaking? I don't know who would ever do such a thing!

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by greymule

[B]For some reason, many lower-level SP players think that
(A) a retired runner has a responsibility to disappear into thin air.
Certainly
(B) in CecilOne's situation, though, it's INT.

How is B different than A? Maybe I wasn't clear, runner out by 1/2 a step.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by greymule

I think that some people use the word obstruction simply because they think it sounds more official and technical and thus gives them credibility. Sort of like the people who consistently insert "whom" where "who" belongs, thinking they will sound educated.

I've noticed the opposite in my softball experience.

Once in a HS varsity game, I had players in the dugout scraming "interference" when they thought a fielder impeded one of their teammates. After play was over, I turned and asked them if they know that if the umpire called intereference, our girl would be out.

The look on their faces was priceless. I then tried to teach them that the defense can be called for obstruction and offered the mnemonic of "the offense is obstructed by the defense".

Of course they probably didn't remember it 5 minutes later, but I figured I could at least try to teach them the proper terminology.

[greymule]

Of whom are you speaking? I don't know who would ever do such a thing!

Very good! I used to have a who/whom test. I'll see if I can find it.

How is B different from A?

In your situation, the runner remained upright to interfere, not to reach the bag (at least as I picture your play). And getting entangled with the fielder is different from simply getting hit by a throw. You can't read the runner's mind, but on a play like that, you don't have to. It's like sliding so far from the bag that you can't reach it with hand or foot.

MLB is getting stricter at 2B and would probably rule INT on that too, even though they seldom if ever called it in the "old days." The unwritten rule used to be that anything went except that you couldn't reach out and hit the ball, grab the fielder with your hands, or raise your arms to block the fielder's vision. Of course, back when men were men, the fielder would have drilled the offending runner with the throw, too. There were a lot of unofficial rules that were not in the book but were still enforced—not by the umpires, but by the players. Even today, deliberate and even unnecessary crashes at home plate are not cause for ejection. But something's going to happen later.

I've noticed the opposite in my softball experience.

You're right, Stat-Man. The people who don't know anything at all call everything "interference." The people who know that "obstruction" is a rule book term but don't know much beyond that will use it in an attempt to sound knowledgeable. Just as the truly illiterate will say that "me and him went to the game," the slightly literate will say that there was "a disagreement between he and I."

My particular two peeves of the moment:

The police found the victim laying on the side of the road.
He passed last night.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by greymule;627903[B

How is B different from A?[/B]

In your situation, the runner remained upright to interfere, not to reach the bag (at least as I picture your play). And getting entangled with the fielder is different from simply getting hit by a throw. You can't read the runner's mind, but on a play like that, you don't have to. It's like sliding so far from the bag that you can't reach it with hand or foot.

Thanks. I saw it as trying to beat the play and just not sliding (lack of skill or confidence), not intent to interfere.

[greymule]

In fairness to your original call, CecilOne, the book clearly says that "runners are never required to slide." If it appeared to you that the runner was making a legitimate attempt to reach 2B standing up, then you probably wouldn't have INT. If for example he beat the throw standing up, stopped on the bag, and merely stood on it, the fielder would then have to throw around him. But if he stayed up running so fast that he couldn't possibly have stopped on 2B—or if after being put out he ran upright into 2B, especially if he made contact with the fielder—he was trying to interfere. These are definitely HTBT plays.

Remember that the OP involved a runner nowhere near 2B and committing no "act."

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

I've noticed the opposite in my softball experience.

Once in a HS varsity game, I had players in the dugout scraming "interference" when they thought a fielder impeded one of their teammates. After play was over, I turned and asked them if they know that if the umpire called intereference, our girl would be out.

The look on their faces was priceless. I then tried to teach them that the defense can be called for obstruction and offered the mnemonic of "the offense is obstructed by the defense".

Of course they probably didn't remember it 5 minutes later, but I figured I could at least try to teach them the proper terminology.

Had a very similar issue during a coed rec game. Bear in mind, Utrip kept the wording that ASA used to have in regards to the defense being in position to receive the throw and blocking the bag. Runner going into 3B slides, right into F5 who was waiting for the throw, which was on its way and the ball was almost to his glove. I had a tag-out. Next thing I know, the offensive manager was yelling "interference!" I said, "No maam, it was not obstruction." She looks at me and asked how it couldn't be interference. I said "your runner didn't commit interference, and the defense didn't commit obstruction because he was in position for the ball which was on its way." The look on the offensive players' faces were a combination of: Interesting night it was.