That's partially my point. If you reply "coach, I can't have interference without a throw," then what the next step in the progression? The coach might ask "is it interference if she throws it?" Then how do you respond to that?

I agree with the veteran, and I admitted that I am a "hard liner" on this. I've quoted rules from two organizations that use the same verbiage. Both put the onus on the retired runner, not the defense. In the case, the defense has the "rights."

Likewise, I've also stated that the play in the video capture does not warrant an out based on the rule. With the BR being past first at the time of the contact, the defense is not denied an opportunity for an out. However, the other play that we have discussed and shown in the SUP clinic involving Tennessee, that very much denies the defense an opportunity for an out.

If you been watching the CWS the last few years, you've seen the defense utilize this rule by throwing at the runner coming into second for the interference and dead ball double play. I would thought the NCAA would do something about this before someone is injured! Coaches are teaching their players to throw at the runner because of the rule verbage.

Well, I probably wouldn't. I'm not out there to conduct rule clinics. If the coach is worth his/her salt, he/she would know that a throw is needed, and even then, an INT call is not an automatic.

IMHO, I think you're taking what is written too literally. There are plenty of examples where the intent of the rule requires further interpretation.

Yes, the rule states, "After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner." I just don't believe the intent of the rule is to penalize a runner who is immediately retired and has no reasonable opportunity to avoid the throw.

Do you expect the retired runner here to slide 45 feet from the bag?

ASA and FED took "intent" out of the rule in question because too many umpires were using that as an excuse not to call interference when warranted because..."I'm not a mind reader, I don't know the runner's intent..."

The instruction to the umpire is to now judge the actions of the retired runner. As stated, the retired runner cannot simply disappear once they are put out. The runner has one specific task...run to the next base, a specific spot on the field. The fielder can use the entire area of the playing field to make a throw. The retired runner has to "do something" besides continue to run to the base in order to interfere.

I find it ironic that the NCAA philosophy taught to umpires on interference with a defensive player fielding a ground ball almost requires physical contact to make an interference call, but they don't have a problem with fielders throwing directly at retired runners.

If a runner is 45 feet from the bag, I would expect her to get out of a throwing lane (by any means necessary - sliding, veering, etc). If she is not in a line from the thrower to the receiver (in this case F6 and F3) and is hit with a ball - that isn't interference. Why? Because the defense doesn't have an opportunity for an out. And just like the video, there is no opportunity for an out as BR had already obtained first base.

But not by rule, there is no conditions, simply to "not interfere," which, by definition, is preventing the opportunity for an out. Watch the Tennessee play from the SUP clinic, the runner stutter steps and then continues at the fielder. She choose to dictate the throwing lane for the defense as a retired runner.

I'm glad you stated these; I'll bundle to make a point. The defense, without possession of the ball (or about to receive in NCAA) cannot dictate the path of the runner. So why would a retire runner be allowed to dictate the throwing lane for the defense? Sure, F6 can use the entire field, but she is afforded the right of an opportunity for an out.

Softball is a game of "rights." Who has the "rights" changes from instant to instant. Batters have rights to the batter's box; the defense has rights while fielding a batted ball, and even a bobbled/deflected ball. The BR has rights to the running lane to preserve the rights of the defense with an unobstructed throw to first base from the plate area. A runner has the right to run via any path to a base - unobstructed - until the rights shift to the defense (depending on code). A runner may also run in a throwing lane and not interfere - that is a right ("intentional" is in effect here). As a retired runner, well, you basically have no rights, similar to the on deck batter and base coaches.

Let's be honest with this play - between first and second is about the only place that there will be differing opinions. IMO, I've got rule support to call interference when appropriate.

Given that we can't expect the runner to vaporize, it seems to me that insisting she stay where she is (or at least not deviate from her path) is safer than making her guess which way to veer. If she veers, and THEN ends up in the path the thrower wants to use, it's much more clearly interference.

For the sake of being complete, from Tenn-Oregon. The ball is still in F6's hand.

Someone alluded to a stutter step by the runner. Could that have been because F4 crossed the runner's path?

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/crabby_bob/8495785024/" title="OregonTennINT by Crabby_Bob, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8227/8495785024_1eb2a5546c_z.jpg" width="640" height="359" alt="OregonTennINT"></a>

To start, where is a "throwing lane" defined in the rules?
Second, how is the runner supposed to know the fielder's intent in the manner s/he is going to relay the throw to 1B?
Third, if the runner does "do something" such as veering right or left and STILL gets hit with the thrown ball, are you going to call INT there, also?
Fourth, where in the rules does it state the a runner must give way or cede any part of the field other than to allow a defender to field a batted ball?
Fifth, and this will make your day, if the runner is DOING WHAT S/HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, which is attempt to advance to the base to which s/he is entitled, it is to everyone's, at least those who are not clairvoyant, advantage if the runner stays the course.

All the NCAA did last year by not addressing this was give credence to the idiot coaches who instruct their players to plant the ball between the eyes of the runner.

Part of the reason ASA removed the relationship of some of the rules to "intent" is because is was being used as a crutch to NOT call interference claiming there was no way they could read the players' mind. It was felt that intent was somewhat redundant in some cases, and an non-starting quantifier in others.

Umpires were instructed, or should have been, to determine whether the player did something to interfere with a play or fielder. In many cases, umpires were instructed to not change the way they made the calls, just drop the "intent" in the manner they saw the play. Interference is a verb and by rule definition, requires an act by an offensive player, team member, umpire or spectator. The failure to act is not interference unless specifically required to do so.

Is this the play they used as the example? This is the only version of it I can find at the moment.

Lauren Gibson hit in the face - YouTube

I dont see any stutter step by the runner, although she does slow down a little. Certainly looks to me like the fielder purposely sidearmed that ball directly into the face of the runner.

It isn't, but doesn't the fielder have the opportunity to make an out, without the interference from a retired runner? In contrast, the fielder does not have the same protection from a runner.

Doesn't matter, she isn't a runner :) She is a retired runner. Do we provide any other offensive member, ODB or base coach, any leeway?

Only if the throw could have, imo, got the out. If the retired runner is not between the the two defensive players, the no out, egro no int.

Again, difference between runner and retired runner. Two different people, and yes, the same person has different status in an instant. Runner have a lot of rights, retired runners do not.

No, the Kung Pao made my day :D. Again, her status changed, she is now a retired runner. Yes, runners have the right to advance, but retired runners have the responsibility to not interfere.

To me, and I'm very much not a wordsmith, but when you "prevent," you very much "act." Sometimes doing nothing is an act. As in the Tennessee play, that we now have video, the player kept running, that was an "act." Sometimes players get caught in situations that just suck, and this is one of them.

IRISHMAFIA is 100% correct on all five points.
I don't think the NCAA will never wise up and leave the game alone for the great collegiate umpires to call it as it was meant to be called.

I alluded to the stutter step, and yes, might have been caused by F4. However, your line is drawn from base to base, not fielder to fielder. Plus, the now retired runner is not on the drawn line, and very much has F6 in her sights and could have moved in either direction (preferably to the inside). She didn't, she got hit, and it could have been a lot worse (than the facemask taking most of the brunt). How much distance does she cover from the time of her being retired to when she is hit with the ball? 8 ft maybe? And she is still 8 feet from the base.

Like I have said before, F6 doesn't throw the ball because she would have hit the retired runner. When DC comes to chat, what are you going to say?

So, let me ask you this: If the retired runner goes into second base with a legal slide and takes out the pivot fielder who tries to throw the ball to first from the bag instead of clearing it before the throw, are you going to call INT on that?

After all, the runner is retired, so, as you say, she has no rights. She did "act" by executing a legal slide into the base. And she did affect the pivot fielder from making a play on another runner.

That's a very good point, and yet just slightly different. That type of bang, bang may not allow for the out anyway, or her status (runner to retired runner) could have happened at the same time. This is like comparing red delicious to canned apple - still apples, but very different varieties.

BTW, only NFHS has a definition of legal slide. NCAA and ASA do not. (That one if you you, Irish Mike :D).