Retired Runner Hit with Throw

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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.

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.

[Crabby_Bob]

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?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

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?

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?

[Manny A]

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.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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 ).

[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

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.

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.

[RKBUmp]

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.

[varefump]

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.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

To start, where is a "throwing lane" defined in the rules?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

. . .
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.

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]

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.