Retired Runner Hit with Throw

[Crabby_Bob]

First image is the out, second is when the runner gets plonked. She's gone about two strides, or, by back of the envelope calculation, about 9 feet total, maybe 7 from the out to the time of the throw.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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.

Sure, and it is the fielder's responsibility to execute a play as much as the runner is by trying to advance to the base to which s/he is entitled.

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?

Absolutely. A base coach is specifically exempt if they are hit by a batted or thrown ball unintentionally.

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.

That response definitely deserves a NSS!

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.

I disagree. The allegedly retired runner has every right to attempt a legal advance and should not be required to take the time to anticipate an out call. If that is the case, maybe all runners should just be ruled out the moment the ball is fielded and thrown toward the base to which they are advancing.

No, the Kung Pao made my day . 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.

Again, where is the act of interference?

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.

Really? So when the light turns green, you can proceed and if the car in front of you doesn't move and you hit it, it's their fault because the light was green and they should have either proceeded or moved out of the way?

You can put it anyway you want, but it really sounds like you are making excuses for pitiful umpiring and weak interpretation. That's a shame.

[EricH]

Sorry to necro this thread, but there are so many bad analogies and allusions....

The retired runner has committed interference, and the batter-runner is out. The end.

"The runner can't disappear" doesn't matter. "The runner was doing what she was supposed to be doing" doesn't matter. Calling out "an act" doesn't matter.

Turn this around. If this was a fielder who attempted to field a ground ball, missed it, and then ran into a runner, no one would use these excuses for the fielder. He would be called for obstruction. If he were lying on the ground, napping, he'd be guilty of obstruction. If he were standing in the basepath like a statue, causing the runner to change his direction to go around, he'd be guilty of obstruction, despite not committing any "act." If your response is "well, standing, lying, napping are all acts," then you've defeated your argument because so is "running bases normally." If your response is "well, this was a thrown ball, not a player," sorry, if the retired runner interferes with a fielder or a throw, it is interference. If the rulemakers wanted us to continue judging intent on throws, they would have left it in. They didn't remove intent from the rule for runners (not yet retired), so why would they remove it for retired runners if they wanted the rule to be called that way?

There is a YT play somewhat similar to this when, with a runner on 1B, a batter bunted the ball into the air and began running. The catcher caught the ball on the fly, so the batter-runner stopped running. That's ALL she did. The catcher threw to first to retire the runner and hit the batter-runner in the back. Umpires ruled retired runner interference after calling a supervisor of officials to confirm the call.

[Cecil4]

1) Nice to remember those who have been so valuable contributing to this forum; although most apparently stopped participating.

2) It is almost 10 years since this topic started, same question as earlier and as said repeated many, many time since; by umpires all over.

3) If there is INT, and the BR has reached 1st before the INT occurs; the BR can not be out as succeeding runner because of the INT.
It would be the runner closest to home, which of course could be the runner at 1st.

4) I hate to use HTBT to not answer, but that is part of the examples.

5) I doubt we will ever resolve this issue, because it is not clearly covered in any rules book.
Like I said, over 10 years with very expert voices and not resolved.