INT on a DP?

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Did F4 have any shot whatsoever at retiring the BR (benefit of the doubt goes towards the defense on this)? If so, then I believe I would have INT on the play (ASA 8-7-P). The runner closest to home is out (which would be the BR).

If the bump hadn't occurred and F4 had no shot whatsoever (ie., the BR is standing on the base at the time of the bump), I'd have nothing.

The key to remember is that R1 can't simply go "poof" and disappear off the field. They have to "commit an act" that hinders the defense. I would judge this "bump" to be an act of hindering the defense, so long as the defense had a remote shot at getting an out on the BR.

Thanks for the help,

It was going to be a close play at 1st if the fielder threw the ball cleanly.

I was playing in the game, the BU said that the fielder had to actually throw the ball for there to be INT, and I believe he said he would have called INT if the 2B had thrown it.

Does it matter how long after the runner was retired when the shoulder bump occured? Edit, just realized that this would basically be a judgement of the runner "committing the act" Here the runner took a few more steps after being retired and made 0 effort to slide/duck/move towards RF.

do rules 8 7 Q or 8 7 J 3 have any effect on this play since the runner has already been retired, or do those rules only apply to "live" runners?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

Thanks for the help,

It was going to be a close play at 1st if the fielder threw the ball cleanly.

Well, it's umpire's judgment if the defense had a chance to get the out. Again, the benefit of the doubt goes towards the defense, not the offense. If the umpire felt that the BR would have easily beaten a rocket of a throw that's on target and cleanly caught, then there's no INT.

Originally Posted by steveshane67

I was playing in the game, the BU said that the fielder had to actually throw the ball for there to be INT, and I believe he said he would have called INT if the 2B had thrown it.

There are some umpires who believe this, but I think that's horsesh1t. They do not have to attempt the throw in order for there to be INT. That usually indicates to me that the umpire has a tough time pulling the trigger.

Originally Posted by steveshane67

Does it matter how long after the runner was retired when the shoulder bump occured? Edit, just realized that this would basically be a judgement of the runner "committing the act" Here the runner took a few more steps after being retired and made 0 effort to slide/duck/move towards RF.

There's no real "hard and fast rule" when it comes to how long after they're been retired it has to be in order for it to be INT. The general rule of thumb is whether or not the runner is doing what they're supposed to be doing at the time of the potential INT call. For example, if the runner slides hard into the base a split second after they're out, causing the fielder's throw to be off-target, it's nothing. If it's WELL after the play and the runner had a million years to get out of the way, it's could be INT.

The umpire has final judgment as to whether or not it was an act of INT.

Originally Posted by steveshane67

do rules 8 7 Q or 8 7 J 3 have any effect on this play since the runner has already been retired, or do those rules only apply to "live" runners?

No, both of those rules pertain to a runner who has not yet been put out. If the "bump" you mentioned was flagrant (ie., clearly meant to harm someone or to start a fight), then the player would be ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct.