Interference Question

[MOofficial]

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

[RadioBlue]

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.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

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?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

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.

[MNBlue]

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.

[Andy]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MOofficial

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

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.