Retired Runner Hit with Throw
 

Please answer primarily for NCAA, ASA, and NFHS.

Sitch: R1 on first, no outs. B2 hits a little looper to F6. R1 takes off for second, but then stops thinking that F6 will make the catch. The ball skips into F6's glove. F6 tosses the ball to F4 at second base to retire R1, who is now just jogging towards the bag. F4 then throws to first to make a play on B2, and the throw hits R1 in the shoulder while she's between the two bases.

Is R1 guilty of interference?

It could be...
 

But, its an HTBT (had to be there). The rule says...the runner is out when a runner interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball or with a thrown ball. If this interference, in the umpire's judgement, is an attempt ot prevent a double play the the immediate trailing runner shall also be called out.

You talking about a play like this?

Recording 201252274241 - YouTube

A retired runner is not the same as a base runner. 8-6-16-c
I agree it's an HTBT (had to be there) play but from what this play states.
I have a dead ball Interference and a double play.

If you judge this as interference, since it is by a retired runner then the runner closest to home would be out. On this particular play, that just happens to be the trailing batter-runner. But that isn't always the case- there could be a more advanced runner ahead of the interfering one.

The immediately trailing runner is out when the interference is committed by a runner who has not yet been retired.

But on to the play at hand...

All we have to go by is the description that R1 was "just jogging toward the bag" when the throw hit her. I have a hard time visualizing that as interference. When a runner is running the bases, just exactly where would you expect her to be other than in the baseline advancing toward a base?

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

If I remember correctly, there was another play in the same series or around the same time that was similar.

I don't remember any violent discussions objecting to the interference call.

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 thought that sounded incorrect.
 

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.

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?

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:
Intent not necessary.

12.9.7 says otherwise. You've quoted the rule that tells you that some interference must be intentional, but others can be unintentional. To know the difference, you must read the rest of the section. 12.9.7 very explicitly tells you that interference with a throw MUST be intentional - no intent, no int.

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."

Different rule. In the OP, R1 is RETIRED, which is covered in the rule I quoted (12.19.5) and there is this:
There is no requirement of intent for a RETIRED runner, which is the OP:

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.

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

Who exactly is Amy?

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.

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).

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

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?

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.

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

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.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/crabby_bob/8492857137/" title="ArizonaNotreDameINT by Crabby_Bob, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8095/8492857137_213bb550c1_c.jpg" width="800" height="485" alt="ArizonaNotreDameINT"></a>

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.

IMO, this was a pitiful call, period. There is no way this can be justified as interference without making unfounded presumptions.

As stated above, no. I'm sure there will be people who will try to justify an INT call, but I would consider it OOO.

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.

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!

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).

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.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/crabby_bob/8496376942/" title="OregonTennINT_1 by Crabby_Bob, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8392/8496376942_b1baa9e8c4_z.jpg" width="640" height="359" alt="OregonTennINT_1"></a>


<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/crabby_bob/8496376886/" title="OregonTennINT_3 by Crabby_Bob, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8105/8496376886_8448759afc_z.jpg" width="640" height="360" alt="OregonTennINT_3"></a>

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.

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

That response definitely deserves a NSS!

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.

Again, where is the act of interference?


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.

Necro
 

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.

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.