Retired runner proceeds straight to base -- do you have interference? (ASA)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by sbatten

Speaking ASA.

R1 on first, no outs. B2 hits a grounder to F6, who throws to F4 for the force out. R1 is halfway between bases at the time of the force and continues running straight toward 2B. F4 attempts to complete the double play by throwing to F3.

For the situations that follow, R1's actions are the same (she just runs straight toward 2B), it is only F4's actions that are different. In all cases B2 reaches the 1B bag just before the ball is caught by F3.

For each of situations, do you have interference by a retired runner (dead ball, B2 out), or B2 safe (live ball)?


(1) F4, apparently to avoid hitting R1, takes a step toward home and then fires a bullet to F3. B2 barely beats the throw.

(2) F4, apparently to avoid hitting R1, makes a throw to F3 with a perceptible arc just over R1's head. B2 barely beats the throw.

(3) F4 throws the ball as if R1 weren't there. The ball skips off R1's shoulder, slowing it down significantly before it is caught by F3. B2 barely beats the throw.


Thanks for the guidance!

Scott

I think the ruling on this really depends on the timing of the play. How long was R1 running towards second after the putout? If it was only one or two strides, then I have a hard time calling anything on 1 or 2. One 1 and 2 I really can't call anything anyway because the throw was not interfered with.

In 3 we have an issue. Since the throw hit the runner who had already been retired we are now in the territory of interference. 8-7-P could be put into affect. Since the runner closest to home in this situation is the batter-runner the batter-runner could be declared out on the play. This would be a judgement call by the umpire if the retired runner's contacting of the ball prevented the double play from being completed.

Cited: Definition of Interference, Definition of Play, rule 8-7-P


I will say this has been a long debated issue regarding what a retired runner is allowed to do when it comes to the double play. We have had this discussion every year in my local league. The timing element because important in this play. If the player takes 5 or 6 steps knowing full well that they were retired on the force at 2nd base and then they are hit by the throw, they, by continuing to run to the base are hindering the play by the defense. If they have only taken a step or 2, or are in the process of slowing up knowing they've be retired and they get hit by the ball then it's much harder to call anything under the "they can't just go poof" idea.

I will say this though. There are some umpires, including some tourney UIC's that don't believe in the can't go poof idea.

One of our league umpires was working a major tourney and had a similar play occur. The throw from F6 to F3 hit the runner who had been retired on the force and was called out for interference by a retired runner. In that case there was a runner on 3rd base. The runner on third was declared out because of the interference by a retired runner 8-7-P, which ended the game. The team protested a misapplication of the rules "arguing that the retired runner did nothing to actually interfere with the throw and couldn't just disappear. The UIC upheld the decision of the umpiring and basically stated that the runner disappears once they are declared out.

I personally had a similar play working a one man game last summer. I ruled interference because the runner threw her arms up (not to intentionally interfere, but out of disgust, and the throw hit her arm.