INT on a DP?

[steveshane67]

this situation happened the other night.

ASA slowpitch
1 out runner on 1st

groundball to 3B, throws to 2nd, gets the force out, its gonna be a close play at 1st bc the 2B isnt good and theres a fast runner. The 2B then does a little crow hop type move directly towards 1B (moving about 5' down the basepath), in the mean time, the runner, who already had been retired, continues running (about 2-3 steps after the force at 2nd) and bumps shoulders with the 2B. At the time of the shoulder bump, the 2B had his arm cocked, ready to throw, the bump knocked him off balance, and by the time he regrouped his balance, the runner was basically at 1B, so the 2B held his throw.

Whats the call if any?

[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.

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

this situation happened the other night.

ASA slowpitch
1 out runner on 1st

groundball to 3B, throws to 2nd, gets the force out, its gonna be a close play at 1st bc the 2B isnt good and theres a fast runner. The 2B then does a little crow hop type move directly towards 1B (moving about 5' down the basepath), in the mean time, the runner, who already had been retired, continues running (about 2-3 steps after the force at 2nd) and bumps shoulders with the 2B. At the time of the shoulder bump, the 2B had his arm cocked, ready to throw, the bump knocked him off balance, and by the time he regrouped his balance, the runner was basically at 1B, so the 2B held his throw.

Whats the call if any?

Based solely on what you have posted, IMO, this is nothing especially with the fielder stepping into the path of the runner.

Back to an old faithful, we cannot expect a retired runner to just go "poof" the second they are put out. The runner attempting to reach 2B is not in itself an act of interference.

This is a DMF since the fielder should know where the runner should be at the time and made a clear decision to attempt to use the same space as the runner.

Of course, as with anything involving this type of judgment, we would have to see it for a definitive decision.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Based solely on what you have posted, IMO, this is nothing especially with the fielder stepping into the path of the runner.

Back to an old faithful, we cannot expect a retired runner to just go "poof" the second they are put out. The runner attempting to reach 2B is not in itself an act of interference.

This is a DMF since the fielder should know where the runner should be at the time and made a clear decision to attempt to use the same space as the runner.

Of course, as with anything involving this type of judgment, we would have to see it for a definitive decision.

What about the BU's explanation (also supported by the PU-I told you the ASA umps in boston are bad) that the fielder has to physically throw the ball for INT to be called?

I didnt really have a problem with the BU not calling INT bc the 2B was way out of position and it was a judgement call as too how much time the runner had to "get out of the way", although it seemed like an eternity from my point of view, but his reasoning is what got me. almost like the jeter caught stealing 3rd base play a few weeks ago play. jeter was safe due to a nifty slide, but the ump, allegedly, called him out bc the "ball beat him"

8 7 J 3, while it does not apply here, clearly says a fielder attempting to throw the ball, and 8 7 P says a retired runner interfering with a fielders opportunity to make a play (which if the runner had been retired 5s b4 the bump, he'd clearly be in violation of 8 7 p) so to me, no throw is ever required.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

What about the BU's explanation (also supported by the PU-I told you the ASA umps in boston are bad) that the fielder has to physically throw the ball for INT to be called?

See Dave's explanation above:

Originally Posted by NCASAump

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.

As a side note...please don't lump all ASA umpires in an area into a category because of the two that you had. Thanks

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Andy

See Dave's explanation above:



As a side note...please don't lump all ASA umpires in an area into a category because of the two that you had. Thanks

Last time I played in a league, I once had two umpires tell me that a runner leading off in SP is an appeal play. One was a "20-year veteran."

8-7-R is one of the few rules I have memorized verbatim. Those umpires were quickly corrected that night.

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

What about the BU's explanation (also supported by the PU-I told you the ASA umps in boston are bad) that the fielder has to physically throw the ball for INT to be called?

The fielder actually throwing the ball shouldn't be a necessary requirement for INT, in my opinion. What if the runner jumps up in the air, facing the infielder (I've seen a nutjob do this), and the fielder holds the ball b/c his instinct is NOT to fire the ball into someone's face?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

The fielder actually throwing the ball shouldn't be a necessary requirement for INT, in my opinion. What if the runner jumps up in the air, facing the infielder (I've seen a nutjob do this), and the fielder holds the ball b/c his instinct is NOT to fire the ball into someone's face?

Or what if the retired runner decides to bowl over F4? Where's the throw, blue?

[Dakota]

The kernel of truth in the "must attempt a throw" is that there must be a play for there to be interference. A fielder holding a throw because there is no shot at the out is not interference, regardless of where the runner is. The judgment comes from determining if the runner committed an act of interference (with a play).

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by Andy

As a side note...please don't lump all ASA umpires in an area into a category because of the two that you had. Thanks

Ive had about 15 different slow pitch ASA umps over the past 2 years, 5 of them were good, 10 were bad (1 even awarded a BR 3B on an overthrow play at 1st!!!)

Im sure that there are tons and tons of good ASA umps out there, just usually not the ones doing games I play in. maybe the good umps here do fast pitch???

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

Ive had about 15 different slow pitch ASA umps over the past 2 years, 5 of them were good, 10 were bad (1 even awarded a BR 3B on an overthrow play at 1st!!!)

Im sure that there are tons and tons of good ASA umps out there, just usually not the ones doing games I play in. maybe the good umps here do fast pitch???

Maybe you need to realize that although it's annoying, recreational league games are usually where most umps get their start.

Maybe the first word in that phrase escapes you: "recreational."

You're not going to find all rec league umps at the same level. Some call Nationals, most don't. Give me a break, it's rec league.

While it should be the goal of every umpire to be perfect the first game and to improve every game thereafter, the reality is that we're all human. We make mistakes. We're NOT perfect.

Don't expect local rec league umpires to be any different.

[qcumpire]

I've got interference. The retired runner interfered with the defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner (rule 8 section 7 P).

Since the player that committed interference is already out, you can not penalize him or her for the interference.

Whether the batter-runner would have been safe or out at first is irrelevent.

The penalty for the interference is applied to the runner closest to home, which in this case is the batter-runner.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by qcumpire

...Whether the batter-runner would have been safe or out at first is irrelevent....

Really? If there was no realistic opportunity for an out, there was no play that was being interfered with.