Interference Question

[FullCount]

Thought this sit had been discuused last year but can't find it.....

ASA Rules, select ball not rec league.

R1 on 3B and R2 on 2b, less than 2 outs. Batter hits a shot to right field. R1 crosses home plate and R2 rounds 3B and goes home. F4 throws ball to F2 who tries to tag R2 as she gets to the plate. However, R1 decided she missed the plate and returned to step on the plate just as F2 is trying to tag R2. R1 clearly interfered with the play.

I was on bases and my partner had a brain freeze at the plate so I ruled interference and R2 out since I thought R1 had scored.

Questions- how could R1 return to try to touch the plate and not interfere? Next, had R1 not returned to touch home plate, could the defense still appeal a missed base on R1 after R2 scored? After the dust settled on this one and all the yelling died down I began to doubt my sanity about it all.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by FullCount

Thought this sit had been discuused last year but can't find it.....

ASA Rules, select ball not rec league.

R1 on 3B and R2 on 2b, less than 2 outs. Batter hits a shot to right field. R1 crosses home plate and R2 rounds 3B and goes home. F4 throws ball to F2 who tries to tag R2 as she gets to the plate. However, R1 decided she missed the plate and returned to step on the plate just as F2 is trying to tag R2. R1 clearly interfered with the play.

I was on bases and my partner had a brain freeze at the plate so I ruled interference and R2 out since I thought R1 had scored.

Sounds good to me. Consistent with 8-7-P.

Originally Posted by FullCount

Questions- how could R1 return to try to touch the plate and not interfere?

Doesn't really matter. They still have an obligation NOT to interfere with any plays once they've scored or are put out as per 8-7-P.

Originally Posted by FullCount

Next, had R1 not returned to touch home plate, could the defense still appeal a missed base on R1 after R2 scored?

Absolutely. Once R2 crosses HP, R1 may not return to touch the missed plate. If they do, it doesn't count. If the defense appeals, I've got an out.

Originally Posted by FullCount

After the dust settled on this one and all the yelling died down I began to doubt my sanity about it all.

Your sanity was sound, brother. Good call.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by FullCount

Thought this sit had been discuused last year but can't find it.....

ASA Rules, select ball not rec league.

R1 on 3B and R2 on 2b, less than 2 outs. Batter hits a shot to right field. R1 crosses home plate and R2 rounds 3B and goes home. F4 throws ball to F2 who tries to tag R2 as she gets to the plate. However, R1 decided she missed the plate and returned to step on the plate just as F2 is trying to tag R2. R1 clearly interfered with the play.

I was on bases and my partner had a brain freeze at the plate so I ruled interference and R2 out since I thought R1 had scored.

Questions- how could R1 return to try to touch the plate and not interfere? Next, had R1 not returned to touch home plate, could the defense still appeal a missed base on R1 after R2 scored? After the dust settled on this one and all the yelling died down I began to doubt my sanity about it all.

More questions

How can an active runner who, by rule, is required to touch the plate prior to any succeeding runner, be called out for interference when all she is doing is properly touching the bases in legal order?

If R2 scores, R1 is not permitted to return and touch the missed plate (assuming it was missed).

Even more questions

How did R1 interfere?

Just asking questions about the play, not your sanity

[RadioBlue]

If R1 had, indeed, missed the plate, then you don't have interference. If R1 did touch, she has scored and by definition a retired runner and I would have interference and rule R2 out.

[BretMan]

If R1 has crossed the plate, but not touched it, hasn't she also scored, just as if she did touch it?

Doesn't her run count, up until the point it is appealed by the defense?

So, until she is appealed, wouldn't she still be subject to rule 8-7-P?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BretMan

If R1 has crossed the plate, but not touched it, hasn't she also scored, just as if she did touch it?

Doesn't her run count, up until the point it is appealed by the defense?

So, until she is appealed, wouldn't she still be subject to rule 8-7-P?

But once she is appealed are you going to nullify the interference since she was no longer a retired runner at the time she committed interference?
________
Live Sex Webshows

[FullCount]

Good morning guys, let me see if I can answer some of the points.

First, I was just inside the 2b-3b line watching the BR with my head on a swivel trying to keep up with what was happening at HP since my partner was a rookie and in a bit of a trance. I didn't see R1 miss HP nor did my partner. All I saw was R1 suddenly run from the backstop to HP and stand on it. She thought she missed the plate, ran back to touch it, and then froze on HP when she found herself in the middle of a tag attempt on R2 (DMR1). While standing on HP she prevented F2 tagging R2. Since R1 had scored I couldn't call her out so I called dead ball, interference, and R2 out. I think that was right but it was so weird at the time that I wanted a reality check. R1 did touch HP, but I was also wanting to confirm that had she missed it in reality that she couldn't go back and touch it after R2 scored or was tagged out. I was also checking that had she missed it the defense could appeal R1's missed base after R2 scored.

It's funny how some of this stuff is so routine until you find yourself under the lights late at night in a surreal situation and then you end up scratching your backside wondering if you got it right. A bit of humor- R2 pulled up when she saw R1 in the way and I got goofy and wondered about calling R1 for obstruction (oh well, maybe not).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

If R1 has crossed the plate, but not touched it, hasn't she also scored, just as if she did touch it?

Doesn't her run count, up until the point it is appealed by the defense?

So, until she is appealed, wouldn't she still be subject to rule 8-7-P?

Do the rules not TELL the runner they must touch a HP missed prior to a succeeding runner scoring? I have no problem with her going back to touch the plate and to me, that is not the INT.

Standing there an getting in the middle of the play, however, can be INT which is why I asked the question. Obviously, it is something that must be seen to make a definitive judgment.

[RadioBlue]

I agree. If she's just standing there on the plate after scoring, she is a retired runner and could be judged interfering with the play. As described in the clarification, I've probably got an out. Good call!

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Do the rules not TELL the runner they must touch a HP missed prior to a succeeding runner scoring? I have no problem with her going back to touch the plate and to me, that is not the INT.

I don't have a problem with her going back to touch the plate either and that's not was I was implying. If she can do that without getting entangled with or impeding the play on R2...have at it! It's not interference until she actually interferes with something.

What I was getting at was more the classification of this "offensive player" for the purpose of knowing which rule would apply.

One post referred to her as an "active runner". If she is still "a runner" she herself would be out for interference.

A couple of posts are calling her "a retired runner". No, not if she hasn't yet been put out, she isn't!

My point was that she has passed home and thus should be treated as "a runner who has scored". That would mean that rule 8-7-P would be the appropriate rule to apply.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I don't have a problem with her going back to touch the plate either and that's not was I was implying. If she can do that without getting entangled with or impeding the play on R2...have at it! It's not interference until she actually interferes with something.

What I was getting at was more the classification of this "offensive player" for the purpose of knowing which rule would apply.

My point was that the same set of rules is dictating the player's actions. I'm no saying the call is right, wrong or whatever, just pointing out the conundrum.