The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:33pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
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?
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 297
It could be...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
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?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,340
You talking about a play like this?

Recording 201252274241 - YouTube
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:09pm
Call it as I see it.
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: So.Cal
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central, FL
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKBUmp View Post
You talking about a play like this?

Recording 201252274241 - YouTube
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.

Last edited by HugoTafurst; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:06pm.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan View Post
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:

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Big Slick; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:26pm.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 297
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scranton, Pa.
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan View Post
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:
Quote:
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.

Last edited by Big Slick; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:22pm.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
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.
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by PATRICK View Post
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."

Last edited by Big Slick; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:14pm.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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.
Different rule. In the OP, R1 is RETIRED, which is covered in the rule I quoted (12.19.5) and there is this:
Quote:
12-9-11 When, after being declared out or after scoring, a base runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another base runner.
There is no requirement of intent for a RETIRED runner, which is the OP:

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Big Slick; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:21pm.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:20pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by PATRICK View Post
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interference by retired runner? Sco53 Baseball 4 Tue Apr 10, 2012 03:54pm
Interference by retired runner charliej47 Baseball 16 Mon Jun 22, 2009 09:00am
Can a retired runner be appealed? dash_riprock Baseball 11 Sat Jan 26, 2008 09:22pm
retired runner CecilOne Softball 16 Tue Apr 25, 2006 09:23am
interference by retired runner shipwreck Softball 15 Thu Sep 18, 2003 07:00am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1