Interference Question
 

Had something I have never seen last night

Situation:

Runner on 1st, no outs. Batter hits a low line drive right back at the pitcher and the pitcher catches it barely off the ground. The runner took off on the hit and the batter didn't know if she had caught it or not continues to run to first. The pitcher throws it to the first basemen who drops the ball and it rolls down the first baseline towards home. The batter-runner while running from kicks the ball in her stride and the runner who took off from 1st makes it back to 1st.

Now with intent being taken out of interference, should interference have been called on the retired runner for kicking the ball and the runner at first being declared out

Yes. 5-1-1e, 8-6-18
ART. 18 . . . After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with
a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing
to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference.
This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.
PENALTY: (Arts. 16, 17, 18) The ball is dead and the runner closest to home
plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. Each other runner
must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

Did the retired BR do this?

Minus the contact with the ball by the retired BR, would F3 had been able to retrieve the dropped ball and been able to make a play on R1?

My real question is this: Is the act alone enough to call interference or do we also have to consider what would have probably happened minus the act?

You raise a valid point, but I think we need to use caution (and the value of our greater experience) before stressing that condition. I fear (and believe that I have seen and heard) way too many umpires would attempt to use that rationale to refuse to make the call that needs to be made. And I know you well enough to believe we have a similar approach on the ball field.

Yes, correct, both this specific rule, and the basic definition of interference require that there be an opportunity to make a possible play for there to be interference. We have to NOT be looking for a sure-fire out in front of us, we have to consider that if there is any reasonable chance that a play COULD be made, then we must give the benefit of the doubt to the defense, and declare the interference.

We CANNOT use this to consider that the batter-runner didn't know she was out, or that she didn't mean to interfere, or the always useless "she was just doing what she was supposed to" until she knows she is out baloney, or whatever other justification we want to use to not make the call.

I completely agree.

We certainly don't want to leave outs on the table, if they are actually there. However, we don't want to reward the defense by giving them an out they weren't entitled to having. Understanding the definition of a play is imperative when making this decision.

Definitely the benefit of the doubt must go to the defense if a reasonable chance that a play could have been made.

I'm having a hard time seeing an act of interference on this play.

I'm thinking of the runner on first, ground ball to F6, throws to F4 for the out, throw to F3 hits retired runner scenario. We wouldn't call interferene on that play unles the retired runner did something to interfere. How many times have we said that the retired runner can't just go "POOF" and disappear?

I don't see much difference in that scenario and the OP.....but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.....

If the retired B/R in the OP deliberatley kicked the ball, I've got no problem with an interference call, but I don't get that from the OP.

the way im envisioning the play, the BR hits the ball and runs towards first, the runner was off on contact. the pitcher catches the ball, the runner stops and heads back towards 1B, the BR continues to run towards 1B. the pitcher then throws to F3, who drops the ball, and it rolls towards HP. the BR, still running, and now probably 50' down the line contacts the ball.

i agree with MNBlue that if the defense would not have retired the runner then you cannot call INT. its essentially the same thing as if the batter never moved out of the LHB box, F1s throw hit F3 in the knee and the ball ricocheted towards the LHB box and while about to come to a stop, barely touched the BR. a split second after the ball touches the BR, the runner makes it back to first.

Dead ball, all runners return to the last base at the time the ball was kicked. Yes, I calling tihs a blocked ball.

If there was a possible play, not an out, a PLAY on any active runner, the runner closest to home is declared out.

Andy:

Your play is a case where the runner was just now out, but didn't disappear in that instant. I think (hope) we all get that one.

The difference I see in THIS post, is that the batter has always been out (and maybe didn't know that, but) then continued to run and interfered. That isn't a "poof" thing, and her not knowing her status (that she is out) has no more credibility than her intent, as the rules are written.

Steve - so you are implying it's a matter of timing as to when the runner or B/R was put out?

On the double play ball, the time between the out being made and the retired runner being hit with a throw is short enough that the runner didn't have time to react, while in the OP, there was enough time between the out that the B/R should have stopped running? Is this one of those judgement situations that we get the big bucks for? :)

Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand your position. I'm still not convinced there is an interference call here.

The 'poof' theory gives a retired runner some protection from interfering, using a philosophy that until retired, a runner is doing what she can to be safe. Restated, the runner isn't expected to assume she WILL be out, until she is.

On this OP, the pitcher caught a sinking liner; was the batter-runner even out of the batter's box yet?? Or maybe 10 feet down the line?? So now, the retired BR still runs another 40-50' AFTER being retired, and then unintentionally contacts the ball dropped by F3.

That isn't covered by 'poof; it didn't just happen at the instant the ball was kicked. And nothing covers if she didn't KNOW she was out; isn't that why the offense gets base coaches, whose job is to direct the runners? Seems pretty clear cut to me; if F3 still had an opportunity to pick up that ball and make a play on R1, that is interference by an already retired runner.

I have 2 outs on this play. BR is out for a caught ball and the 1B runner is out on the interference by the BR per the mentioned rule. Next batter.

If you don't have 2 outs, then what would you have called, if due to the BR kicking the ball, the 1B runner goes safely to 2nd base or beyond?

Don't understand how a "blocked ball" could be called here.

You want to rule INT if there is a runner moving on the play, but that may require a hesitation and waiting on the runner to react. Well, if it is interference then the ball has to be dead at the time of contact with the retired batter. INT is not an afterthought call.

Let's take the other side of the argument that it is nothing and the retired batter kicked the ball that ended up in the RF corner and R1 scores. Good luck tell the DC that it is just tough and thems the breaks.

IMJ, the retired batter is no longer engaged in the game. She is not supposed to be there and should not be permitted to affect the play. As noted by Steve, the batter wasn't just put out. The ball had been caught, thrown to 1B, missed rolled toward the retired batter.

A blocked ball is the only manner in which you can kill the ball without ruling INT and for there to be INT, there needs to be a possible play and if there isn't, there is not INT.

One aspect omitted from the OP would have been a strong/verbal 'out' call by the PU (if it was mentioned, I missed it) If so, the 'didnt know' theory goes out the window ;)

I can picture this...

- At the crack of the bat, umpire is taking a quick step to the catcher's left and removing his mask (kind of like the picture you posted in the other thread!). There are a few fractions of a second burned up.

- On a "line drive near the ground", umpire pauses slightly to make the call, to make sure there aren't any issues with the ball being trapped or to make sure the pitcher retains secure control of the ball before he signals the out (normal good timing). Maybe two more seconds gone before he starts to verbalize the catch.

- If all that eats up a couple of seconds...batter could be halfway up the line with a pretty good head of steam by then.

- When the verbal call gets made, it is going to take another fraction of a second for the batter to react and several feet to decelerate (ie: can't go "poof").

I guess that I could imagine this working out where the batter is legitimately close to first base, even with a strong verbal call by the umpire.

Bret describes how I see this play....I don't envision the retired batter/runner doing anything she is not supposed to be doing, ie running to first base after she hits the ball.

The other point I'd like to make here is that if the defense had executed the play properly (not dropped the ball) this whole discussion would be moot. I just can't see on this specific play rewarding the defense with an out for misplaying the ball.

I can see Mike's rationale for the blocked ball call and would think that may be a more likely outcome for this play.

Then why is there a rule 8.6.18, if the "Blocked Ball" theory can be used?

They are both possible calls, depending on a judgment if a play was possible. If a play is possible, as judged by the umpire, 8-6-18 (NFHS) and 8.7-P (ASA) describe the ruling. If the umpire judges no play (thus no interference), then you shouldn't let the situation continue and develop to where a later play might be possible.