Hypothetical
 

Watching a game yesterday and saw the following situation...

R1 on 2nd.
0 or 1 out
Left handed batter
Batter strikes out.
R1 steals third.
Batter walks toward dugout (3B side) crossing between catcher and 3rd.
Catcher holds the ball (doesn't make attempt to get R1).

A) Could interference have been called on batter (already out)?
B) Would C needed to have made a throw for interference to have been called?
C) What is the result if this is interference? R1 out? R1 back on 2nd? What if R1 started on third and had a lead? C still held the throw b/c of the batter.

I had no dog in this fight, just thought it was an interesting scenario.

BTW, I'm not a blue, just a parent who likes to know the rules (although I'm not always successful:p)

NCAA rules:

A) Yes
B) No. If batter movement is judged to be intentional to protect runner, you have a double play.
C) See B. Expect a conversation from the OC. Runner at third would be more difficult to sell especially without a throw and double especially if she didn't attempt to go home.

The fact that F2 didn't attempt a play (whether she actually got a throw off or not) negates INT. Not sure what whether the runner did/didn't attempt to go home has to do with anything. Had F2 attempted a throw to 3rd, R1 should be called out for the batter's interference after striking out. Intent has nothing to do with determining INT in this case. Conversation with OC will be brief.

ASA:
A retired batter can be called for INT if F2 makes an attempt and the retired batter hinders.
Penalty is the runner closest to home is Out.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Speaking ASA

A & B) If the umpire believed the retired player interfered with the catcher's opportunity to get an out, yes. HOWEVER, the umpire shouldn't be expected to be a mind reader. I'm going to use a term I don't like to use often, but I think it works here. The catcher doesn't have to make a throw, but at least come up with a softball move to show the umpire she was not just sitting on the ball.

C) Runner closest to home is declared out.

Agreed w/ Irish...maybe I wasn't clear but Irish summed up what I was meaning to say. Thanks Irish.

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.

Smart Move!! :D

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.

Very common. Teams run invitationals and friendlies as fundraisers.
No real conflict of interest.