Retouch home after leaving field

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It's not illegal. It doesn't mean anything, but it's not illegal. (As an aside, even if retouching were somehow illegal ... why would you call a scored runner out for reentering the field - maybe she's coming to get her bat ... or coach a base)

Yes it is illegal in the OP. Once you enter the Dugout area (leave the field of play) you may not go back and retouch a missed base including home plate. after the play is completed she may re-enter to pick up the bat or to go coach but once she entered the dugout during live ball play she can not return until the ball is dead. you could rule interference 8-7-p

[BretMan]

Usually, if an act is "illegal" then there's some sort of penalty associated with it.

Maybe a better word for a scored runner coming back on the field to re-touch a missed base would be "moot".

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

You could rule interference

Only if she actually interfered with a play, an attempt by the defense to retire another active runner. I hope that you wouldn't rule interference jjust because the player re-entered the field.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Usually, if an act is "illegal" then there's some sort of penalty associated with it.

Maybe a better word for a scored runner coming back on the field to re-touch a missed base would be "moot".



Only if she actually interfered with a play, an attempt by the defense to retire another active runner. I hope that you wouldn't rule interference jjust because the player re-entered the field.

no but if by coming out to retouch a base confuses any defensive player I have interference per the rules (8-7-p)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

no but if by coming out to retouch a base confuses any defensive player I have interference per the rules (8-6-p)

I think that's an extreme overreach. As is your use of the word Illegal. Her leaving the dugout to touch home does her as much good as coming out to get a bat or high five the next runner - it's a waste of time. But "illegal"? I think not.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

no but if by coming out to retouch a base confuses any defensive player I have interference per the rules (8-6-p)

I hope you're not one of those umpires who goes out of his/her way to find rule violations for even the most minor of on-field incidents. I honestly don't see how a runner who has just entered the dugout and then comes out to touch home plate would confuse anybody. It would be a real stretch to make an interference call here.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I honestly don't see how a runner who has just entered the dugout and then comes out to touch home plate would confuse anybody. It would be a real stretch to make an interference call here.

And even if it did confuse someone - confusion is FAR FAR FAR below the threshold needed to be deemed "interference".

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

And even if it did confuse someone - confusion is FAR FAR FAR below the threshold needed to be deemed "interference".

Longhorn please go back to your rule book and read it.

Interference: The act of any offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that IMPEDES, HINDERS OR CONFUSES a defensive player attempting to execute a play

I may be new on this forum but I am far from being a rookie.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

Longhorn please go back to your rule book and read it.

Interference: The act of any offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that IMPEDES, HINDERS OR CONFUSES a defensive player attempting to execute a play

I may be new on this forum but I am far from being a rookie.

Didn't call you a rookie or make any such assumption. You've just posted, however, exactly why your initial post was not appropriate. Consider some newbie on here who reads your post and then takes it as gospel. Then rules interference in a case where such a play confused a defender... with no other action going on.

Confusion is not the threshold for interference. And neither is your 2nd post - getting them to make a play on the scored runner. Closer, but still not interference.

The key, as I've said a couple of times now, is that they must impede, hinder or confuse a defensive player ATTEMPTING TO EXECUTE A PLAY.

Remember that we're talking about a runner who scored, going all the way to the dugout, and then coming all the way back out... 99.9% of the time, nothing is going on any more this late in the play.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I hope you're not one of those umpires who goes out of his/her way to find rule violations for even the most minor of on-field incidents. I honestly don't see how a runner who has just entered the dugout and then comes out to touch home plate would confuse anybody. It would be a real stretch to make an interference call here.

No I do not I am just the opposite I try to stop the problems before they happen. I work a lot of high caliber ball.

But like I said if in coming back after leaving the field the Defense makes a play on the retired - scored runner you could and should have interference because the player has no right to re enter the field during this play as she is now bench personnel.

Now if she never left the field of play she has every right to go back and properly touch the base. or to retrieve a bat as someone else said.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

But like I said if in coming back after leaving the field the Defense makes a play on the retired - scored runner you could and should have interference.

Well... A) No, that's not what you said. You said if she confused a fielder, you would have interference. B) Even this revised version of your ruling is not enough to rule interference. Making a play on the scored runner is enough to put the possibility of interference in the umpire's head - but not enough, yet, to actually rule interference. There would have to be some other possible play somewhere else that was prevented due to the attempt to retire the scored runner. And no, a girl 2 steps off of 2nd who then returns to 2nd is not a possible play. There has to be an actual bona fide chance to get someone out that is passed on in lieu of the chance to get this scored runner out.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Well... A) No, that's not what you said. You said if she confused a fielder, you would have interference. B) Even this revised version of your ruling is not enough to rule interference. Making a play on the scored runner is enough to put the possibility of interference in the umpire's head - but not enough, yet, to actually rule interference. There would have to be some other possible play somewhere else that was prevented due to the attempt to retire the scored runner. And no, a girl 2 steps off of 2nd who then returns to 2nd is not a possible play. There has to be an actual bona fide chance to get someone out that is passed on in lieu of the chance to get this scored runner out.

Potatoe Potato in how I worded it. It can still be Interference.

I have more references for you if you need.

8-7-u Runner entering dead ball territory.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

no but if by coming out to retouch a base confuses any defensive player I have interference per the rules (8-6-p)

I don't think so. What would confuse the player? EVERYONE knows you cannot come out of DBT and be engaged in the game, so where would there be any confusion?

Now, if the player entered the field and started running in the vicinity of the 3rd base line, that I could buy as INT. But it would still take something to convince me that player's presence interfered with the defense.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't think so. What would confuse the player? EVERYONE knows you cannot come out of DBT and be engaged in the game, so where would there be any confusion?

Now, if the player entered the field and started running in the vicinity of the 3rd base line, that I could buy as INT. But it would still take something to convince me that player's presence interfered with the defense.

I'm having a little trouble following the thread, so let me try and restate a couple of scenarios and see if I've captured what you all think.

R1 scores while B2 reaches first. R1 enters the dugout and believes she missed the plate.
A) R1 returns to try and touch. F1 throws to F2 to tag her before she can retouch. B2 advances to second in the confusion.
B) B2 decides to go to second. While she is moving R1 returns to attempt to retouch. F4 takes the throw and throws home instead of tagging B2.
C) R1 returns to try and touch. B2 stays at first.

InsaneBlue, you're saying both A&B are interference, B2 out in both cases? Mike you're saying they are both not?
Insane you agree that we have no Int in C, yes?

Now, what if instead of R1, we have S3 running out to the plate to purposefully confuse the defense? Same answers?

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm having a little trouble following the thread, so let me try and restate a couple of scenarios and see if I've captured what you all think.

R1 scores while B2 reaches first. R1 enters the dugout and believes she missed the plate.
A) R1 returns to try and touch. F1 throws to F2 to tag her before she can retouch. B2 advances to second in the confusion.
B) B2 decides to go to second. While she is moving R1 returns to attempt to retouch. F4 takes the throw and throws home instead of tagging B2.
C) R1 returns to try and touch. B2 stays at first.

InsaneBlue, you're saying both A&B are interference, B2 out in both cases? Mike you're saying they are both not?
Insane you agree that we have no Int in C, yes?

Now, what if instead of R1, we have S3 running out to the plate to purposefully confuse the defense? Same answers?

Yes if by coming out to retouch in a and b you could rule it as interference if the defense was to make a play on her and the runners advance.

Again you must use your own judgement on this. If the defense does nothing as in c I would ignore it.

In all cases the defense would still have to appeal the missing of home plate for that out.

I have asked our state UIC for his interpretation of the OP play. I have also asked if my findings would be justified.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm having a little trouble following the thread, so let me try and restate a couple of scenarios and see if I've captured what you all think.

R1 scores while B2 reaches first. R1 enters the dugout and believes she missed the plate.
A) R1 returns to try and touch. F1 throws to F2 to tag her before she can retouch. B2 advances to second in the confusion.
B) B2 decides to go to second. While she is moving R1 returns to attempt to retouch. F4 takes the throw and throws home instead of tagging B2.
C) R1 returns to try and touch. B2 stays at first.

InsaneBlue, you're saying both A&B are interference, B2 out in both cases? Mike you're saying they are both not?
Insane you agree that we have no Int in C, yes?

Now, what if instead of R1, we have S3 running out to the plate to purposefully confuse the defense? Same answers?

FWIW, I wouldn't have an Out in A. What play on B2 was hindered when F1 threw to F2? I would send B2 back to first base.

And, OBTW, I wonder which umpire would actually see R1 enter and then leave the dugout. The only time I ever focus on a player entering the dugout is when it's the batter on an uncaught third strike.