Interference / Blocked Ball / Nothing

[NCASAUmp]

Situation: R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B. No outs. B3 hits a grounder to F6, who fields it cleanly and steps on 2B for the force out. B3 is a fast runner, and there's no chance of a play on him. R1 is a slow runner, so F6 turns and throws to F5 covering 3B. However, R2, who is now out, is heading towards his dugout on the 3B side when he is hit with the throw. The umpire judges that R2 did not deliberately attempt to block the throw.

Is it nothing (keeping the ball live)? Do you have INT? Or could you call a blocked ball, and if so, would you send R1 back to 2B?

[greymule]

Normally, it would be nothing, but I think you HTBT. I'm having a hard time visualizing how R2 could get positioned so that F6 could hit him with a throw to 3B.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by greymule

Normally, it would be nothing, but I think you HTBT. I'm having a hard time visualizing how R2 could get positioned so that F6 could hit him with a throw to 3B.

Yeah, as did I. This isn't a scenario that I thought up or witnessed, but something that was brought up on another board. I think the OP on that board said that F6 "pump-faked" to 1B, but decided to go to 3B instead. R2, thinking the throw was going to 1B, rounded inside the diamond and headed towards the dugout.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Situation: R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B. No outs. B3 hits a grounder to F6, who fields it cleanly and steps on 2B for the force out. B3 is a fast runner, and there's no chance of a play on him. R1 is a slow runner, so F6 turns and throws to F5 covering 3B. However, R2, who is now out, is heading towards his dugout on the 3B side when he is hit with the throw. The umpire judges that R2 did not deliberately attempt to block the throw.

Is it nothing (keeping the ball live)? Do you have INT? Or could you call a blocked ball, and if so, would you send R1 back to 2B?

Speaking ASA

INT, R1 is ruled out.

Though allowed to continue one's running tasks, this isn't what R2 was doing and has an obligation to NOT get involved in any subsequent play.

8.7.P. Pretty much the same as the recently cited play where a fallen retired runner, even though still in what was his basepath stands up and is hit with a throw in an attempt to make a play on another runner.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

INT, R1 is ruled out.

Though allowed to continue one's running tasks, this isn't what R2 was doing and has an obligation to NOT get involved in any subsequent play.

8.7.P. Pretty much the same as the recently cited play where a fallen retired runner, even though still in what was his basepath stands up and is hit with a throw in an attempt to make a play on another runner.

My thoughts on this were that yes, the runner can't just go "poof" as we always say here (and elsewhere). However, to me, the key is whether or not the runner had enough time to get out of the way of any potential play. If R2 had sufficient time to react and choose the wrong path, then we would have INT. If not, then it's a case of "runner can't just go 'poof.'"

I would say this is a HTBT sitch. Like Dave said, it would depend on how much time elapsed and if R2 had a chance to react and get out of the way. But I know one thing, if it's judged that R2 didn't INT, the BU will definitely catch hell from the defense and prepare for an interesting discussion with their coach/manager.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

My thoughts on this were that yes, the runner can't just go "poof" as we always say here (and elsewhere). However, to me, the key is whether or not the runner had enough time to get out of the way of any potential play. If R1 had sufficient time to react and choose the wrong path, then we would have INT. If not, then it's a case of "runner can't just go 'poof.'"

You are right, the runner cannot just go "poof". However, that doesn't mean the runner can choose their path of exit without suffering the ramifications if they interfere.

The offense cannot have it both ways. The defense should not be required to read the minds or body language of the opponent. The runner cannot go poof when they are doing what they are supposed to do, hence the protection at that point. What they are supposed to do is try to advance toward the base, not turn out one way or the other.

[greymule]

Yes, by proceeding from being out on the way to 2B to somewhere between 2B and 3B, the runner committed an "act," however unintentional, that caused him to interfere.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You are right, the runner cannot just go "poof". However, that doesn't mean the runner can choose their path of exit without suffering the ramifications if they interfere.

The offense cannot have it both ways. The defense should not be required to read the minds or body language of the opponent. The runner cannot go poof when they are doing what they are supposed to do, hence the protection at that point. What they are supposed to do is try to advance toward the base, not turn out one way or the other.

This is the retired runner we're talking about. Your previous posting, you talked about R1 who was already going from 2B to 3B. Are we confusing the two, or mixing up the terminology?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

This is the retired runner we're talking about. Your previous posting, you talked about R1 who was already going from 2B to 3B. Are we confusing the two, or mixing up the terminology?

R1 is the runner closest to home who is the player to be declared out when a retired runner is guilty of INT.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

R1 is the runner closest to home who is the player to be declared out when a retired runner is guilty of INT.

My bad, it was Dave who referred to R1 as R2 or the other way around. Got the posts mixed up in my mind when I reading through them.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

My bad, it was Dave who referred to R1 as R2 or the other way around. Got the posts mixed up in my mind when I reading through them.

Oops.