NFHS 8-6-18 "intent"
 

One of the first High School games of the season (raining since March 7th) and here we go...

No out- R1 at 2nd, R2 at 1st, B3 hits ball between F7 & F8- R1 rounds 3rd and scores when F8's throw home beats her, but the ball is knocked out of F2's glove/tag, and rolls 6' away.

You guessed it- here comes R2 to the plate while F2 & R1 are still tangled up at the plate. R1 has rolled on top of F2, who actually heaves R1 off her in an attempt to retrieve the ball and make a play on R2. R1 made no immediate or obvious attempt to clear the plate after scoring, but obviously did not intend on interfering with F2.

I am PU, and kill the play just as R2 approaches home (she does weave thru R1 & F2's legs to touch the plate) calling R2 out on R1's scored runner interference. BR3 ends up at 3rd, where BU thinks she belongs, but my opinion was BR3 should be put back at 1st, the last base obtained at the time of the throw home (she hadn't reached 2nd before the dead ball)
OC comes unglued saying R1 didn't try (intend) to hinder F2's attempt to stay with the play. The rule change has removed intent from the equation, leaving it to U's judgement whether or not interference occured. OC may have had a point last season, but not now?

Agree or disagree here? - Thanks

As you say - there does not have to be intent for there to be interference by a retired runner. If, in your judgement, the retired runner interfered than you apply the appropriate penalty.

The runner that was left on would be placed on the last base she had touched at the time the interference occurred.

I agree with Marvin. It's all up to judgment. However, I wouldn't be too quick to call interference in a case such as this. It's quite possible that you just have a wreck. Overall, sounds like a HTBT.

I initially also thought nothing more than just normal playing action. But, if situation were reversed, runner had not touched home yet, catcher lost ball in collision and was laying on top of runner trying to get to home plate, would we not have obstruction on the catcher?

Your judgement of INT on R1 sounds reasonable. BR3 gets the last base touched at the time of the interference not at the time of the throw.

I had this simular call three times this year already. I just calmly tell the not so calm coach that the retired (or already scored) runner interfered. One responded that yea she did, but that breaking up the double play is part of baseball, good thing we're playing softball.

So, besides your partner's rule knowledge, I'm wondering about his judgment. A runner who hadn't gotten second and he thinks she "belongs" on third. If this had been obstruction near the plate and R2 had been the obstructed runner tagged out at home, an award of third would obviously not sound right.

I'm having a hard time picturing how R1 ended up on top of F2.

If R1 slid into home and F2's legs, shouldn't F2 be on top of R1? If this is the case, F2 should be able to get up and retrieve the ball, and I don't see interference here.

You stated that R1 had "had rolled on top of" F2.....to me, this doesn't sound like something that would normally happen on a play like this. From your description, I think this action qualifies as interference. HTBT for sure, but there's my $0.02

As to where to place the other runner, I think that has been answered.

I had been wondering the same thing. In my mind, it really comes down to who is making a proper softball play and who is not. I'm not sure I have enough information (and probably wouldn't without seeing it) from the OP. So in my mind, I see some distinct possibilities.

A sliding R1 is trying to score while F2 awaits with the ball in the glove. At this point, everybody is doing exactly what we would expect. Now, the ball comes loose and squirts a few feet away from F2. It's what happens at this point that requires our attention and judgment.

If (a) R1 touches the plate on the slide and resulting pileup leaves R1 on top of F2, that alone is not enough to determine RR Int, IMO. What has she done wrong? She was, and is, playing the game the proper way.

If (b) R1 is prevented from reaching the plate because of a good and legal block and subsequently F2 falls on top of R1, we again don't have either player doing anything "wrong." Both are making the expected softball plays.

Now, if I judge that R1 in (a) or F2 in (b) do something that shows evidence of no longer making a bona fide softball play, then my judgment is going to cause me to call RR Int (a) or OBS (b). For instance, if in (b) the catcher continues to lay on top of R1 while F1 retrieves the ball and tags R1, I've got OBS.

If we modify (a) just slightly where she doesn't touch the plate but winds up on top of F2, do we have INT on R1? I think I'd need further evidence before I could come up with INT in either situation. In other words, just because R1 was skilled enough to actually touch the plate while sliding does not constitute INT with all other things being equal.

If the interference occured while the BR was between 1st and 2nd, the BR should go back to 1st as you stated. If the interference occured after the BR had passed 2nd then that is where she had been placed. Not sure what your BU was thinking.......but the BR is only entitled to the base granted by the interference rule.

Joel

Speaking NFHS only:

She has interfered with the defense making a play on another runner. The rule change this year clarifies that there does not have to intent. If a run scores because the runner has pinned the catcher, is that "right".

If the catcher is in possesion of the ball good for her. If the catcher drops the ball and the catcher prevents the runner from advancing the catcher has obstructed the runner. Again, no intent needed. If the pitcher picks up the ball and tags the runner that is pinned by the catcher is that "right".

And I am not confusing intent with "wrong". What is "wrong" is what violates the rules. No other criteria matter.