What you're failing to do is to realize what the question being asked is.
You posit:
A player who leaves the field to enter the dugout becomes bench personnel.
We say why?
You say (including the implied premise):
Because she entered the dugout and I've said many times that a player who leaves the field to enter the dugout becomes bench personnel.
This is circular and you should avoid doing it.

Now here you do at least make a slight argument when you say what else could she be. To which I answer well, if she went and entered the wrong dugout would she become bench personnel for the other team? Or even better, if a runner having been retired ran over to her mom in the fan area to pick up a pair of sunglasses, then returned and interfered do we have spectator interference, or interference by a retired runner? And can you back any of that up by any reference to definitions or something in the rule book that could convince someone who does not believe that any player entering the bench area automatically instantly becomes bench personnel.

Seriously. Repeating your "feeling" is not a rule. "YOU SAY" is not a rule.

Got a rule to support this position, please state it. You won't find it. This player is what she is, and doesn't change just because you think she should.

Try again. Show me a rule that permits her to go into the dugout and then come back out. There is a rule saying that she isn't permitted on the field. I already wrote that. You just don't like it. So again, show me a rule that says she can go into the dugout and come out again.

esq - I just went through all of your posts on this thread, and I see no rule quoted by you at all, much less one that tells us to treat a runner who has scored as something else entirely once she touches the dugout.

You asking us to quote a rule that says she's allowed to enter and leave the dugout is equivalent to asking us to quote a rule that says a pitcher can throw a drop pitch. Generally, with a few exceptions, the rulebook doesn't list every single thing that is allowed. Rather, it tells us what's not allowed. If you don't see it, it's allowed.

There are rules about what scored (and retired) runners can and cannot do. There is nothing in there that says this changes when or if they enter the dugout.

I've been following this thread, and what keeps returning to me is that she remains a retired runner for the duration of the play. I have no rules support for that, but it just makes sense.

Given that no rule says that she becomes something else, then that's exactly what she is.

See ASA Rule 5-12 and let me know where it says that she can enter the dugout and return.

When you're done with that, could you find me the rule where it says that after a runner who has scored and then picks up the bat is entitled to put it down instead of carrying it around for the rest of the game?
Esq, it is a well established canon of rulebook construction, that things not forbidden are generally permitted and that assuming something not actually in the book requires a higher burden. If you believe that a retired runner who enters the dugout is somehow different from a retired who scales the backstop, you have to show us the rule.

Since this started as an ASA question I E-mailed Kevin Ryan for some feed back. I asked from my point of view from our on going arguments.

Hi Kevin, Having some discussions on a message Board and would like some input.

Basically we are having a discussion on a runner missing home plate (Assumed to have touched when passed) enters the dugout and is told by teammates that they missed home plate. The runner runs out of the dugout and draws a throw allowing another runner to advance.

I ruled that this action causes interference as the runner entered the dugout and becomes bench personnel and has no right to reenter the field.

Everyone has a problem with my ruling as they say the runner is not bench personnel just because they entered the dugout.

What is your take and can you give me some rule references.

Here is Kevin's reply


I believe you are right in this situation for the following reasons: Rule 8, Section 3G, Rule 8 Section 7P and Rule 8, Section 7N

Rule 8, Section 3G
No runner may return to touch a base missed or one left too soon after a trailing runner has scored or once they leave live ball territory.

Rule 8 Section 7P
When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

The fact that they drew a throw allowed a runner who would not have advanced to advance to 3B. The Effect would be to declare the runner closest to home out.

Rule 8, Section 7N
If someone comes out of the dugout and interferes....

When member(s) of the offensive team stand or collect around a base to which a runner is advancing, confusing the fielders and adding to the difficulty of making the play.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home is out. Runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

Hope this helps.

Kevin Ryan
ASA Supervisor of Umpires

Way to change your original premise. Here's what you first wrote:

Nothing about drawing a throw or letting another runner advance. I don't think that anyone said this could never be interference, rather that the player would have to actually interfere with something before it was.

I don't care if your initials are KR, I think that using 8-7-N to classify this player as "bench personnel" is pretty sketchy. There's nothing in that rule that addresses the status of the player as being "bench personnel".

What if...bases are loaded. Ball is hit, three runners score. Before leaving the field, the three runners all circle third base to make the play on the batter-runner harder for the defense.

By the logic offered, these three scored runners would all be considered as bench personnel. But your point was that they had to enter the dugout first, then come back out. It just isn't consistent. And, like the retouch of home in the first post, it's probably moot.

Why not just call this player a "retired/scored runner". The penalty is the same if she interfers- runner closest to home is out.

I did earlier

This was in answer to

And my rule reference is the same as K.R.

This is an excellent example of one's lack of reading comprehension.

The rule states who can be out of the dugout. That means if the rule doesn't allow it, it isn't permitted.

"Shall not be outside...except." That means, "Are required to be inside in all other circumstances." What is so hard to understand?


Again, I am going to employ common sense and wouldn't even consider interference unless there was some overt act causing the defense to react. With that said, the retired runner is prohibited by rule to come out of the dugout. There is not exception that you can point to that allows her to be outside. She isn't a coach in the coach's box, an on-deck batter in the on-deck circle, a batter in the batter's box, a defender in a defensive position, etc.

Actually, being a retired runner is irrelevant.

And I can guarantee you do not want to work games where someone actually thinks this rule is important enough to sit on or you will be stopping the game for ridiculous **** more often than a first grade nun prays for patience.

The entire key to all of this is the word "interference". And I'm not talking about the "what ifs" or presumptions of what could have or should have happened. I'm talking about an act by a non-active participant doing something that actually interferes with a play and that does not include what could be considered a DMF.

Then why spend four more pages arguing that she is "bench personnel"?

And why pull out a rule that makes no mention or definition of "bench personnel" as your "proof" that this player is bench personnel?

Why not just use the rule about interference by a retired/scored runner?