Retouch home after leaving field

[DUNDALKCHOPPER]

ASA- Is it legal to retouch home after leaving the field. If no, how should Ump handle. Let it happen and see if defense appeals it, or call runner out as soon as she reenters the field ?

[RKBUmp]

Once past a base, the runner is assumed to have touched it until properly appealed. If the defense doesnt make the appeal, then there is nothing to rule on. If they do leave the field, reenter and touch the plate, the retouch is invalid and they may still be appealed for having missed the base by the defense.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DUNDALKCHOPPER

ASA- Is it legal to retouch home after leaving the field. If no, how should Ump handle. Let it happen and see if defense appeals it, or call runner out as soon as she reenters the field ?

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)

[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 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

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.

[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.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

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

Look, I'm not trying to dogpile you... but words are important. Potato potahtoe? How you worded it is nowhere near interference. You completely omitted the important part.

8-7-u Runner entering dead ball territory.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you retract this part. Surely you don't think this rule has anything at all to do with the OP.