Make the call

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by ronald
ASA talking:

I may not have paid enough attention in class but I thought I heard that if a runner touches a base and then goes back past that base (touching or not touching it) that he/she had lost that base. If I paid attention correctly, would that apply here or did I get not pay close enough attention?

If R1 lost it, then I'd go with 2 outs and no int. If she did not loses it, then i have to judge whether the going back towards third was int and rule accordingly. A run would count regardless of int or not. If I have int, then out at second, run scores and 2 outs.

I wish the sit had more info so we could get a clearer idea of what led the defense to throw home. was offense yelling, get back to third, defense screaming throw home, etc. That helps to make the correct call. This type of wording should be in some of the plays imho.

Ronald,

Thinking the same way I was, but that only applies when a runner reverses direction and for some reason passes the base to which they are forced, the force is reinstated. Or, after touching home plate, attempts to return to retouch 3B which was left too soon on a caught fly ball or missed enroute to score fails to retouch home on the way would be subject to a missed base appeal at the plate.

Though I don't like it, the run would score. The reason I don't like it is that if you are going to allow the runner who has crossed the plate to remain active for the purpose of returning to keep from being put out on appeal, why wouldn't you do the same to the runner who intentionally reintroduces themselves into a live ball scenario? It certainly isn't the defense's fault that this runner with the aid of a coach (and probably half the dugout) couldn't figure out which way to go.

JMHO,

[Skahtboi]

The way I see it, R1 scores and R2 is out.


Scott

[greymule]

A runner who legally scores cannot later be put out. Only Fed baseball makes an exception, and that is if the runner on 3B is forced home, and he runs or slides past the plate and makes contact with the catcher.

The runner also cannot go back to 3B even if he wants to. The question is, If a runner who has legally scored tries to return to 3B in the mistaken belief that he left too soon or missed the base, is he guilty of interference if the defense plays on him?

I would say no. Unless, I hear differently, I won't call it unless I believe the act to be a deliberate attempt to confuse.

[SamNVa]

Once the runner has scored, she cannot "unscore" her run even if she mistakenly returns to 3rd, so the run scores regardless of subsequent action. Now whether you consider consider R1 drawing a throw on her mistaken return to be interference or not, you have the BR out at 2nd in either case, so you have 2 outs, add 1 to the offensive team's score.

To add a slight twist to the play, suppos the BR missed 1st on the way to 2nd. Can the defense appeal her miss at 1st for the 3rd out to negate the run?

SamC

[ChampaignBlue]

Originally posted by SamNVa
Once the runner has scored, she cannot "unscore" her run even if she mistakenly returns to 3rd, so the run scores regardless of subsequent action. Now whether you consider consider R1 drawing a throw on her mistaken return to be interference or not, you have the BR out at 2nd in either case, so you have 2 outs, add 1 to the offensive team's score.

To add a slight twist to the play, suppos the BR missed 1st on the way to 2nd. Can the defense appeal her miss at 1st for the 3rd out to negate the run?

SamC

No, R1 scored and nothing you can do about that. You can't get the same player out twice. Had there been 2 outs at the start of the play then you could get 3rd out and no run, but then R1 wouldn't have been thinking of tagging up. Well,at least R1 shouldn't be thinking of tagging up but I do alot of alleged adults and they, well I probably should just stop at that. Jim

[oppool]

I have to admit when I first read the play last night I was on the same path as Ronald and Mike were orginally on this post, thinking a runner going back to a base put themselves back into jeopardy of being put-out only at HOME base is this not true. Somebody stated in there post that it would make a difference on ruling INT on R1 on this play if they knew what other members of the offensive team was telling his teammates where to throw on the play. I dont really see where this would make any difference on the call myself AND really dont see a case for the INT call on R1 on this play even though the end result would be the same. JMO


Similiar play in NFHS case book is play 2.49

Ruling: The run counts. Once a runner scores she cannot be put out if it is other than leaving too soon or missing a base. So R1 scores B2 out on the tag and B3 up to bat with 2 outs

ADDITIONAL QUESTION: I am supposing by this ruling if F8 had completed the catch after R1 had touched HOME she would not be able to go back to tag up at 3rd?


Don

[greymule]

Even after touching home, R1 could return to touch a base missed or left too soon. However, R1 would have to retouch home if she ran past it.

If a following runner scored, then R1 could not return.

[WestMichiganBlue]

I still think that you have interferrence - as defined 8.6.17. Thus dead ball, and B1 returned to 1B. But someone has to be called out; if it can not be R1 (because she has scored), then it has to be B1 (who is closest to home plate). Same result, run scores and now 2 outs.

Note that if you determined that R1 intentionally interfered, then "the umpire has authority to declare two runners out." Casebook 8.6.17. Now you do have your inning ending double play.
WMB

[Dakota]

Originally posted by WestMichiganBlue
I still think that you have interferrence - as defined 8.6.17.

OK - that's your judgment, but the rule book (ASA) says "...may be considered a form of interference..." not must be considered...

This means it is umpire judgment, and therefore, not calling this interference is a legitimate application of the rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

OK - that's your judgment, but the rule book (ASA) says "...may be considered a form of interference..." not must be considered...

This means it is umpire judgment, and therefore, not calling this interference is a legitimate application of the rule.

Tom,

This was originally a Fed question and I believe that is the book WMB is citing. But even ASA has the caveat that the umpire must believe the runner's action was intentionally meant to draw a throw.

[greymule]

If Abel scores legally and then runs backwards around the bases waving his arms and then tackles F4 who is trying to tag the runner, Abel's run still scores. The other runner is out for Abel's interference. The umpire cannot nullify Abel's run and award two outs on that play. But Abel will be "out" of the game.

[WestMichiganBlue]

Dakota said "OK - that's your judgment, but the rule book (ASA) says "...may be considered a form of interference..." not must be considered..."

FED 8.6.17: A runner continuing to run AND drawing a throw - may be considered a form of interference. In the original scenario, both conditions existed - (1) the runner DID continue to run, and (2) the runner DID draw a throw. Even though we were not there, I think a good case for interference can be assumed.

Greymule said "The umpire cannot nullify Abel's run and award two outs on that play."

I did not say the run was nullified; I suggested that two outs could be called. That is based on FED casebook 8.6.17 COMMENT: The umpire has authority to declare two runners out when after being declared out OR after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes . . . .

Now maybe that is poor writing (by use of the word OR in the comment). Perhaps they are suggesting that if a runner is called out, and then interferes (including continuing to run and draw a throw), then, because the runner is already out, the umpire can call another runner out. (Just like calling a double play if you believe that interference was intentional to break up a double play opportunity.) But the "OR" suggest that you could call two outs after a runner has scored, then intentionally interferes. I am not sure I would take that literally.

WMB

[oppool]

Ok first will go to case book play NFHS 8.6.17 Situation A which talks about a runner that has scored continuing to run and runs into F2 trying to make a play. Ruling run counts. IF in the umpire's judgement the INT prevented B2 from being put out the umpire shall call her out.

Then on this original play it states that F8 looks like they might make the play which gaves R1 a reason to be running back to 3rd since they left early. So I believe that takes away any INTENT on the play by R1 which means you may not rule INT on R1 on this play. R1 cannot be tag on the play running back to 3rd BUT she can be called out on a APPEAL for leaving the base early..

My understanding is this is all the same for ASA too.


JMO

Don

[greymule]

It's just poor writing. A runner cannot both score and be out. In Fed, if a runner scored on a force play and then crashed the catcher, the ump would call both that runner and the BR out, but the run wouldn't count. I can't remember whether a crash after a non-force play at home could put the runner out.

In a baseball thread, we've been talking about poor writing. Look at Fed 2002 rules book 8-4-2f:

"Any runner is out when he . . . as a runner or retired runner, fails to execute a legal slide, or attempts to avoid the fielder or the play on a force play at any base . . ."

If he's a retired runner, he's already out. And he's out if he attempts to avoid the fielder or the play?

[WestMichiganBlue]

was completely re-written in FED Softball last year, and though it is definately better, the issues covering interference, especially on a suceeding play, are still confusing.

INTENT is not required to call interference except in the case of a thrown ball (or a runner hit by a fly ball while in contact with the base). Deliberate, or accidental, the runner is still out. However, INTENT is required for an umpire to judge if the interference was an obvious attempt to prevent a double play. There is no judgemet as to whether or not the second out actually could have been made, the suceeding runner is out (by rule).

INTENT is required to call interference on a RETIRED runner (having scored or been put out) that prevents a play from being made on another runner. By rule, the runner closest to home is then called out. But in the Casebook, if in the umpire's judgement the interference prevented a runner from being put out, then THAT runner can be called out. (Confusing!)

I don't understand why retired runner's interference has to be intentional. In Casebook Situation A mentioned by Oppool, F2 received ball behind home plate too late to tag R1. F2 turns to throw to 2B to get B1, but is hit by R1 and drops ball. If that is intentional, then dead ball and B1 returns to 1B - OR - if you think that interference prevented a play on B1 then you call B1 out. But if the contact is accidental, then no iterference and B1 stays at 2B. What if F2 was hit while throwing and threw the ball into centerfield, allowing B1 to go to 3B or even score? Should that be allowed to stand? Based on the lack of intent, it would. What do you think?
WMB