Hypothetical

[SamG]

For what it's worth, DC asked C why she didn't throw and C answered "she was in my way". Now, granted this was 10U, and probably one of those things that you'll only rarely see, so I understood why C didn't attempt the play, and why PU didn't call anything. I was just curious what would have happened if...

Thanks

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by SamG

For what it's worth, DC asked C why she didn't throw and C answered "she was in my way". Now, granted this was 10U, and probably one of those things that you'll only rarely see, so I understood why C didn't attempt the play, and why PU didn't call anything. I was just curious what would have happened if...

Thanks

So sorry, coach; I cannot rule on a hypothetical play that wasn't attempted, nor even begin to make decisions based on what your player MAY have been thinking. We rule on plays and attempted plays; we didn't have either here. For what it is worth, I suggest you use this as a learning/teaching moment with your players; to have interference, there must be a play being attempted.

[derwil]

In 6.12 of the CCA manual, pg 100 (I only have 2009 on me right now), it states that "if a runner is coming toward a defensive player, a throw is not required to have an interference call". Upon re-reading the OP I agree that there shouldn't be a DP because it states that no play was being made. If a play was being made (catcher rises and initiates a throwing motion) and a throw was not attempted because of the retired batter is in the way, I'm probably going to ring her up.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by derwil

In 6.12 of the CCA manual, pg 100 (I only have 2009 on me right now), it states that "if a runner is coming toward a defensive player, a throw is not required to have an interference call". Upon re-reading the OP I agree that there shouldn't be a DP because it states that no play was being made. If a play was being made (catcher rises and initiates a throwing motion) and a throw was not attempted because of the retired batter is in the way, I'm probably going to ring her up.

Bad call blue. Read the rest of your sitch. If you still think it's applicable to OP, quote it here - I bet you see why it's not while you type it.

[SamG]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So sorry, coach; I cannot rule on a hypothetical play that wasn't attempted, nor even begin to make decisions based on what your player MAY have been thinking. We rule on plays and attempted plays; we didn't have either here. For what it is worth, I suggest you use this as a learning/teaching moment with your players; to have interference, there must be a play being attempted.

If you're referring to me, I'm not a coach. I was a spectator watching the game waiting for another one. I had no relation to this game. I thought at the time the C should have made the throw and if she had, there could have been interference. I wasn't positive, so I thought I'd ask here.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by SamG

(snip) I wasn't positive, so I thought I'd ask here.

Smart Move!!

[UmpireErnie]

Just to be clear...

Yes, the retired batter walking in front of F2 while a runner advances could become interference. But the retired batter's actions must actually interfere somehow with an actual play. The mere act of crossing in front of F2 does not constitute interference.

No there does not need to be a throw but there has to be some type of effort by the defense to make a play on the advancing runner which the retired batter interferes with to call interference. This could be F2 moving toward the runner with the ball and being hindered by the retired batter, not necessisarily a throw.

But if the batter strikes out, the runner from 2B runs, and F2 just stands there holding the ball while the retired batter returns to her team area by passing in front of F2 I have nothing.

I am speaking ASA and NFHS. Gotta think NCAA is the same.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SamG

For what it's worth, DC asked C why she didn't throw and C answered "she was in my way". Now, granted this was 10U, and probably one of those things that you'll only rarely see, so I understood why C didn't attempt the play, and why PU didn't call anything. I was just curious what would have happened if...

Thanks

Well, PU didn't call anything because there was nothing to call. Doesn't matter how old. Had there been a play, and retired batter had ACTUALLY (not just hypothetically) interfered with that play, he could be called out for interference (intent is irrelevant here).