Retired Runner Hit with Throw

[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.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

So what's the reverse? F6 doesn't throw it because retired R1 is in the throwing lane. And you tell the defensive coach . . .
?

[PATRICK]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

So what's the reverse? F6 doesn't throw it because retired R1 is in the throwing lane. And you tell the defensive coach . . .
?

I don't see why F6 can't clear a throwing lane by stepping to either side. I don't see how throwing at a runner's face is interference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by PATRICK

I don't see why F6 can't clear a throwing lane by stepping to either side. I don't see how throwing at a runner's face is interference.

Especially this immediate to the action, and this far from the action.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by PATRICK

I don't see why F6 can't clear a throwing lane by stepping to either side. I don't see how throwing at a runner's face is interference.

She did, imho. I paused the video trying to figure out where the runners were when she got hit. Here's the screenshot. The ball is firmly planted in the grill.

[tcannizzo]

As previously said, NFW is that INT. Her only move was defensive because the ball was thrown at her. We dissected this when it happened.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

So what's the reverse? F6 doesn't throw it because retired R1 is in the throwing lane. And you tell the defensive coach . . .
?

If the defensive player doesn't throw it, then there is absolutely NO WAY an interference call is warranted. There's plenty of precedence in other situations (BR out of the runner's lane, batter in F2's throwing path on a base steal, etc.) where No Throw = No INT. To me, it wouldn't be a hard sell to convince the defensive coach of that.

I didn't participate in the discussion that took place after the NCAA play (at least I can't recall that I did). But it matches with the play in my OP, and one discussed at a rules clinic I attended a couple of nights ago. Only one veteran umpire at our clinic believed INT should be called, because he felt the rule on retired runners doesn't give the player any leeway if she continues to run in her path.

BTW, thanks for the screen capture, Crabby_Bob. I assume (since the YouTube video didn't go far enough) that the BR was ruled out for the retired runner's act. I find it fascinating from the screen capture that at the moment the ball hits the retired runner, the BR is well past first base.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Only one veteran umpire at our clinic believed INT should be called, because he felt the rule on retired runners doesn't give the player any leeway if she continues to run in her path.

Picture the typical "turn-two" play at second base. The fielder steps on the bag, pivots and fires the ball all in one fluid motion. The amount of time that elapses between the touch of the base (ie: the instant that the runer is out) and the ball hitting the runner can be maybe one second.

My questions to the "veteran umpire" would be:

- Can you really consider whatever the runner did in that fraction of a second between being put out and getting hit by the ball as "continuing to run in her path"?

Up until the instant that the base is touched, the runner is perfectly within her rights to be running on a straight line directly to the base. What exactly are you expecting her to do differently in the one second between being retired and being hit?

And she's not out until the umpire declares her out. Is the umpire making this call really going to signal the out, and the runner going to process that she really is out, all in that one second. That seems an unreasonable expectation.

- What do you think satisfies a requirement to not continue running the instant you're put out? Should the runner stop in her tracks? Veer off? Duck?

- Do you expect the runner to begin veering off or to start ducking before she's even put or declared out?

If you think that she has some responsibility to "get out of the way", and she doesn't reasonably have time to make an evasive move the second she's called out, then the only way to do that would be to stop/veer off/duck before she's even put out.

This requires a runner to act as if she is out (get out of the way) when she is still a legal and viable runner. Okay, so let's say she does this. Then, the fielder at second drops the ball or misses the bag. Ooops! Now the runner is not out and we have just severely handicapped her effort to run the bases by requiring her to act as if she's out when she really wasn't!

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Manny A

If the defensive player doesn't throw it, then there is absolutely NO WAY an interference call is warranted. There's plenty of precedence in other situations (BR out of the runner's lane, batter in F2's throwing path on a base steal, etc.) where No Throw = No INT. To me, it wouldn't be a hard sell to convince the defensive coach of that.

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 didn't participate in the discussion that took place after the NCAA play (at least I can't recall that I did). But it matches with the play in my OP, and one discussed at a rules clinic I attended a couple of nights ago. Only one veteran umpire at our clinic believed INT should be called, because he felt the rule on retired runners doesn't give the player any leeway if she continues to run in her path.

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."

BTW, thanks for the screen capture, Crabby_Bob. I assume (since the YouTube video didn't go far enough) that the BR was ruled out for the retired runner's act. I find it fascinating from the screen capture that at the moment the ball hits the retired runner, the BR is well past first base.

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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."

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?

[Andy]

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.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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

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.