Retired Runner Hit with Throw

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Runners aren't expected to vanish, duck, dive, veer or peel off the instant they're retired.

However, they are expected (explicitly by rule) to not interfere. Remember, the act does not need to be intentional:

NCAA 12.19 Interference is an act that denies a defensive player a reasonable opportunity to make a play (field/throw) anywhere on the playing field. The act may be intentional or unintentional, . .

NCAA12-19-5 A base runner, after being declared out or after scoring, may not interfere with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another base runner.

Yes, umpires discuss this play all the time. I'm surprised someone hasn't said "if she was doing what she was suppose to do . . ." Well, she suppose to not interfere.

I'm a pretty hard line guy on this, and I teach the hard line stance. The key to Bret's language is "instant" -- anything longer than an instant, I've got interference. For example, in the linked video, yes, interference (that was way more than an instant). The other one was the Tennessee player (shown in the SUP online clinic). I've got interference on that one too, and that was real close to "instant." You don't have to give yourself up, but you cannot interfere.

I only posted the NCAA rule, but the same in all codes.

Yes, I know. Other will disagree.

[DeputyUICHousto]

I was using the new app on my phone for the rule book. I've found it to be quite difficult to use. But, you are correct. A runner already put out who then interferes would cause the runner closest to home to be out.

[PATRICK]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

However, they are expected (explicitly by rule) to not interfere. Remember, the act does not need to be intentional:



Yes, umpires discuss this play all the time. I'm surprised someone hasn't said "if she was doing what she was suppose to do . . ." Well, she suppose to not interfere.

I'm a pretty hard line guy on this, and I teach the hard line stance. The key to Bret's language is "instant" -- anything longer than an instant, I've got interference. For example, in the linked video, yes, interference (that was way more than an instant). The other one was the Tennessee player (shown in the SUP online clinic). I've got interference on that one too, and that was real close to "instant." You don't have to give yourself up, but you cannot interfere.

I only posted the NCAA rule, but the same in all codes.

Yes, I know. Other will disagree.

I know this will come up Sunday, but the definition says :

1.72 Interference- equipment or the act of an offensive player...

What "act" of interference did she commit?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by PATRICK

I know this will come up Sunday, but the definition says :

1.72 Interference- equipment or the act of an offensive player...

What "act" of interference did she commit?

The runner in the video prevented F3 from catching the ball and subsequently retiring the BR at first (other than timing issues aside, being that it was a dropped line drive, the BR could have made it to first prior to the ball arriving). The Tennessee play is a better demonstration of this type of interference.

Update: as I look at the video, the ball strikes the runner after the BR arrived at first, therefore not an opportunity for an out. The latter is what we should judge the act, not that "she couldn't get out of the way."

[PATRICK]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

The runner in the video prevented F3 from catching the ball and subsequently retiring the BR at first (other than timing issues aside, being that it was a dropped line drive, the BR could have made it to first prior to the ball arriving). The Tennessee play is a better demonstration of this type of interference.

Update: as I look at the video, the ball strikes the runner after the BR arrived at first, therefore not an opportunity for an out. The latter is what we should judge the act, not that "she couldn't get out of the way."

Brian,
The Tennessee video is nothing more than F4 throwing a ball at R1. I saw no act of interference in that video.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by PATRICK

Brian,
The Tennessee video is nothing more than F4 throwing a ball at R1. I saw no Amy of interference in that video.

Who exactly is Amy?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by PATRICK

Brian,
The Tennessee video is nothing more than F4 throwing a ball at R1. I saw no Amy of interference in that video.

I very much did, as she was a retired runner. Furthermore, although there was no explanation, why was it shown in the interference section of the presentation?

[PATRICK]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I very much did, as she was a retired runner. Furthermore, although there was no explanation, why was it shown in the interference section of the presentation?

I totally disagree with this being interference, bit I will call their ball the way they want it called. I don't have to like it.

They are fostering a dodgeball mentality.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by PATRICK

I totally disagree with this being interference, bit I will call their ball the way they want it called. I don't have to like it.

They are fostering a dodgeball mentality.

Don't call this interference. It's not.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I very much did, as she was a retired runner. Furthermore, although there was no explanation, why was it shown in the interference section of the presentation?

Oh dear.

Go to the clinic and check the handout... OR, find someone who has been. This video was an example of a mistaken call. If I can find my handout, I'll scan and post.

(At the same time, feel free to go check this site's discussion when that actually happened. Panned as a horrible call by nearly everyone).

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Oh dear.

Go to the clinic and check the handout... OR, find someone who has been. This video was an example of a mistaken call. If I can find my handout, I'll scan and post.

(At the same time, feel free to go check this site's discussion when that actually happened. Panned as a horrible call by nearly everyone).

Yeah, show me the "handout." There is no SUP handout. And get yourself an NCAA manual, Interference is one of the IN FOCUS item, specifically mentioning "interference by a runner already being declared out." No mention if this was being called incorrectly in 2012.

There may be handout from your group. It was panned on here, just like now. But what side has the rule support?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by PATRICK

What "act" of interference did she commit?

I would suspect those who agree this is interference will say the "act" is continuing to run in the base line after being retired.

Personally, I don't agree with it. But I come from a baseball umpiring background, and "over there" retired runners aren't expected to immediately disappear, as BretMan mentions. In fact, some baseball rule sets explicitly state that if a runner continues to advance after being retired, he/she shall not by that act alone be considered as interfering.

I'm just trying to find out if there is something similar in softball.

[roadking]

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.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

However, they are expected (explicitly by rule) to not interfere. Remember, the act does not need to be intentional.

Perhaps I should have been more clear that I was responding from an ASA/NFHS perspective. I don't work NCAA, but remember this from their rules...

12.9.7 Base Runner is Out...When she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.

So, some of their rules do require intent. I suppose the caveat is that the above rule is for a not yet retired runner, and the play in question is for an already retired runner.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Perhaps I should have been more clear that I was responding from an ASA/NFHS perspective. I don't work NCAA, but remember this from their rules...

12.9.7 Base Runner is Out...When she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.

So, some of their rules do require intent. I suppose the caveat is that the above rule is for a not yet retired runner, and the play in question is for an already retired runner.

ASA removed intent for the retired runner from the rule book a few years ago, for Fed:

8-16-c. After beind declared out . . . a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner . . .

Intent not necessary.