Retouch home after leaving field

[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.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Manny A

(snip)

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.

I would think the umpire that was aware that she missed the plate, knowing that there was a possible appeal, would know.
OK maybe not would, but should.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

I would think the umpire that was aware that she missed the plate, knowing that there was a possible appeal, would know.
OK maybe not would, but should.

True. But with other runners on base, the umpire's focus may be elsewhere. I suppose if it was obvious (e.g., she comes out after action has settled) it would be easy. I was thinking of the scenario where she's just entering the dugout and suddenly goes to the plate when a teammate makes her aware of the miss.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Manny A

True. But with other runners on base, the umpire's focus may be elsewhere. I suppose if it was obvious (e.g., she comes out after action has settled) it would be easy. I was thinking of the scenario where she's just entering the dugout and suddenly goes to the plate when a teammate makes her aware of the miss.

sometimes ****olah happens and you have to deal with it.
If no one saw her in the dugout, she wasn't in the dug out.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

What rule backs you up sending her back to her previous base without having an out?

By sending her back you are recognizing that the play was illegal and therefore you have interference and on interference you have an out on the runner closest to home and then you return any other runners.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

What rule backs you up sending her back to her previous base without having an out?

By sending her back you are recognizing that the play was illegal and therefore you have interference and on interference you have an out on the runner closest to home and then you return any other runners.

Speaking FED, I would use rule 8-6-15 and 8-6-18. While -15 speaks of the on-deck batter, it mentions that if no play is obvious when the on-deck batter (and, as a viable extension, any offensive player not involved in base running) interferes, nobody is out and runners return. And -18 requires a runner who has scored or has been retired to interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Whereas example "B" in youngump's scenarios clearly shows that R1 prevented the defense from playing on B2, example "A" does not.

[jmkupka]

If B1 did not enter the dugout, was pushed back by a teammate ('you missed the plate!') should she be immediately called out? If defense saw none of this, and did not appeal the missed base, would the run still count?
While the answer to the first question is obviously yes, wouldn't calling her out give a clue to the defense that an appeal might be needed?
Sorry for the semi-hijack... this is before my first coffee

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Speaking FED, I would use rule 8-6-15 and 8-6-18. While -15 speaks of the on-deck batter, it mentions that if no play is obvious when the on-deck batter (and, as a viable extension, any offensive player not involved in base running) interferes, nobody is out and runners return. And -18 requires a runner who has scored or has been retired to interfere with the defense's opportunity to make a play. Whereas example "B" in youngump's scenarios clearly shows that R1 prevented the defense from playing on B2, example "A" does not.

If you want to take it to Fed you have a retired runner at this point and still interference.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

If you want to take it to Fed you have a retired runner at this point and still interference.

I never said there wasn't interference. But not all interference calls result in out calls on other runners. It's not automatic.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

What rule backs you up sending her back to her previous base without having an out?

By sending her back you are recognizing that the play was illegal and therefore you have interference and on interference you have an out on the runner closest to home and then you return any other runners.

FWIW, you are right here. No rule or interp, or rationalization at all can support sending the runner back. Either the scored runner interfered - or she didn't. Sending the runner back is wrong in either case.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

FWIW, you are right here. No rule or interp, or rationalization at all can support sending the runner back. Either the scored runner interfered - or she didn't. Sending the runner back is wrong in either case.

Perhaps I'm wrong to assume that what is said for the on-deck batter applies to other players and coaches. But the Penalty when an ODB interferes under 7-5-4 does allow for runners to return to their previous bases if the interference happens when no play is obvious. I thought the same was the case for other offensive teammates.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

A is most likely nothing (perhaps something if F2 is chasing the scored runner around). B could very well be interference if they had a legitimate play on the runner (which sounds probable). C is definitely nothing.