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

[CecilOne]

This seems to be one of the least resolved issues in umpiring.
Is there any way to get this clarified/ruled/interpreted officially; short of asking each tournament UIC how they interpret it?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

This seems to be one of the least resolved issues in umpiring.
Is there any way to get this clarified/ruled/interpreted officially; short of asking each tournament UIC how they interpret it?

Only among those that won't listen is this unclarified. And it should not be interpreted differently by different UIC's. Let me try...

Here's one principle: an active runner can't just go "poof".
Here's another: interference requires an "act" of interference.
Here's another: Not all "acts" considered by the defense to be interference are interference.

I think I might have heard those recently....

[sbatten]

Thanks to all for the discussion. As noted by two posters...

Here's another: Not all "acts" considered by the defense to be interference are interference.

I brought the topic up because I had the situation of the defense changing her actions (moving a step toward the infield) to avoid hitting the retired runner with the throw. The throw was late but close. I called the batter-runner safe, no interference.

The defensive coach politely but strenuously disagreed. She said I should have called a double-play because of the runner's actions. I explained to the coach a runner simply continuing in her forward momentum she was not committing an act to hinder the defense, and that as long as she wasn't committing some other act (like throwing up her arms to block a throw, or running into F4 while she was making the throw) she was not interfering.

I know this topic has been discussed here before and I thank you all for letting me air it out again. The coach had me second-guessing myself afterwards.

Scott

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by sbatten

Thanks to all for the discussion. As noted by two posters...



I brought the topic up because I had the situation of the defense changing her actions (moving a step toward the infield) to avoid hitting the retired runner with the throw. The throw was late but close. I called the batter-runner safe, no interference.

The defensive coach politely but strenuously disagreed. She said I should have called a double-play because of the runner's actions. I explained to the coach a runner simply continuing in her forward momentum she was not committing an act to hinder the defense, and that as long as she wasn't committing some other act (like throwing up her arms to block a throw, or running into F4 while she was making the throw) she was not interfering.

I know this topic has been discussed here before and I thank you all for letting me air it out again. The coach had me second-guessing myself afterwards.

Scott

This is a subject that is way overthought and people try to make something out of nothing.

A runner has every right to attempt to advance to a base. A runner should never be expected stop playing the game based on an assumption the call was out.

A runner should be expected to always maintain what would be the path to the base. Not altering a path is not an act of INT. ASSUMING an out and moving anywhere away from that path would be an act that if it affected the defense's ability to make a play on another runner should be ruled INT.

This train of thought is not new and has been in place since I've been umpiring softball (25 years).

Other than the point that the NCAA has callously opened season on runners the last couple of years, the only reason I can figure someone thought things changed was when ASA removed the "intent" notations to many of the INT rules.

When that occurred, there was no intention, pardon the pun, to change the manner in which the "acts" of interference were to be judged.