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

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

Don't see your point, but I don't see INT either.

1) Safe
2) Safe
3) Safe

Perhaps the OP would benefit from a bit of a discussion about why.

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.

WAIT A MINUTE! You mean the defense doesn't get to decide that? ;):D

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.

Where in the rules does it say the runner can't just go poof? Also, what is defined as an act of interference?

An act can be defined as simply putting yourself into a position to be hit by the throw, which by continuing to run, the runner in the OP has done.

Let's look at a slightly different play. Very slow runner on first. Hard shot to F4, who throws to F6 for the force. F6 then guns to first to try getting B2 at first. The throw hits R1 who knows they are out and has stopped. This prevents the double play. By stopping has R1 committed an "act of interference?" What if he/she had just been slowing jogging/walking and to second knowing they were put out at 2b. Where is the act of interference or lack of an act of interference on that.

(Yes some of the church league game I do have players that big and slow that this could be an issue.)

It says so in my physics book. Unless, of course, the Rapture happened right at that moment, and R1 was a believer...

Well, there's always the Hogwarts Book of Spells. ;)

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.... :)

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.

I'm not arguing that, BUT, where in the rules does it say that? The rules don't always completely agree with logic.

As it was said at the Advanced Fastpitch Camp this past week, Not every situation is covered by the rule book and sometimes you have to toss the rule book and apply logic to a play.

Sounds like a lot of people are really saying, "As long as the runner does 'what she is supposed to,' there isn't interference."

Should we apply this to R1 who runs in a straight line directly into F4 fielding a batted ball? Her "act" is running. Colliding with F4 isn't an "act" it is just a consequence of her "non-act" of running, according to the logic we hear.

So if F6 dives for a ball that just gets by her, is she immediately committing obstruction on R2 (assuming she was actually hindered) because she is no longer in the "act" of fielding a batted ball?

Seems to be a lot of contradiction and applying the "what's she supposed to do " philosophy, that so many argue against.

Yes, and as a matter of fact, that was the same verbiage used in Colorado Springs in 2006 at the National Council Meeting when "intent" was removed from the INT rules.

That's not logic, that's just a misleading argument. What R1 is "supposed to be doing" is avoiding a fielder making a play on a batted ball.

That could be true. But on OBS, the runner just gets what should have been where on INT, the defense ALWAYS receives an assumed out, sometimes two.

No more so than awarding a base to a runner on an IP. One has nothing to do with the other except for being punitive, just like effecting the LBR for a runner stepping off a base or not deciding to return to the base quick enough when there is obviously no play developing.

Then there is the U3K. Why does the offense get another chance to reach the base safely simply after failing to put the ball into play and the catcher doesn't catch the ball? Neither did what they were supposed to do, so why isn't it just a wash?

I really like this.....having had 32 hours of Physics (Quantum Physics/Orbital Bodies/Nuclear and some Electrical Engineering courses counted as Physics when I was in college. I hated Ficken Optics and Magnetism......my oldest Daughter ate that shit up...(that is why she is an engineer and I am not)...My brother was also a genius at that stuff. Ugh......all I have to say.......I was always a Chemistry Guy......

But, I like this one better.........d;-)

Flitwick would have been awesome.

Rich....please moderate this post......this is not a whose **** is longest just so you know. But, I thought since you have known me since about 1997, you can add some credibility to what I am fixin to say.

EsqUmp is still beating his dead horse.......Jeez...You have been proven wrong so many times.....why do you even still argue it....? You should go to your other NY expert and have him find that his BB Expert Carl Childress agrees with US. Even though it has no bearing on the SB game.

Arguing for interference when there is none is insane.

Dakota, Steve, Irish, Tom, NCAA, Manny, myself and many other hundreds of other umpires (who I wish I could all name) have butted heads for years arguing about the most trivial of things..........all the way back to the 90's......and we for the pretty much part kept it civil.

You show up in the last two years and proclaim yourself God's gift to umpires. And if we did not adhere to your view of umpiring....we were idiots. Time and time again we show you where you are wrong....and you act like a Teflon Don.....you allow the shit to roll right off of you.

Excuse me if I am not impressed.

Ooooooh.....you are an NCAA umpire.

Get in line. I can out umpire about 99% of y'all in ASA ball.....and probably most others in NCAA....even with a shitty hip.

PM me for my pedigree.....

Joel

Haven't you been embarrassed enough.

Joel,

1: I didn't start the post, so I didn't bring a horse to the race.

2: Everyone has provided an answer. Some have articulated a basis for the argument. Some haven't. The fact that I participated in the discussion doesn't mean I'm beating a dead horse. Moreover, I'm certainly not the one who killed the horse in the first place.

3: Don't go running to someone asking to stifle me. No one needs a 2nd grade tattle tail. All I offered were some philosophy to the conversation and used it as a point of comparison. I don't care whether someone agrees or disagrees with it. I can still respect an opinion even if I don't agree with it.

4: Why don't you try taking what I wrote and actually respond to it? Again, you can agree or (obviously) disagree; but trying to call me out for one post is juvenile and spineless.

5: I have never posted my resume, short or long. I have never once preached games I have worked. I don't even list the organizations I belong to. So don't dare try to tell me that I am turning this into a whose **** is bigger. You started that crap and I have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

geez,,talk about a whose **** is bigger...lol..calm down and listen to other opinions once in a while. its healthy for officiating to hear some wisdom that may be outside the box although relavant. you dont have to agree with it but i would hope it would it would give you food for thought. and if no one else cares, im impressed with you being so accomplished, someday i hope to be a 1 percenter, my hip is ok but my shoulder bothers me once in a while..does that count?....lol...by the way, which post by esq ump did you interpret as uncivil?. i find his responses to be quite literate and gramatically civilized..take it easy and keep an open mind

or science;););)

grounder.......

I was speaking to a specific individual.....not you.

Read his posts and decide who you think is the instigator.

We had a nice argumentative group here before a certain person got here......it then got personal.

I have been arguing with some of these guys for more than 15 years......one guy comes in and it all blows up......who do you blame.

Hope all is well with you.

Joel

thanks joel..i hope things are well with you also...i understand your position and frustration at times with the esq guy. i think his approach is a bit brusque at times but dont you find his slant and take on what has been standard mechanics and rule interpretations , at least. a little interesting? i dont agree with him a good portion of the time but there are times when his ideas just seem to make sense. being on the outside looking in at most discussions on here i think posters like him make for a more thought provoking discussion...just my opinion of course

Joel, he (and a couple of others) have not been participants on this board for some time.

At least as far as I am concerned.

The "ignore" list is a wonderful thing!

Until someone quotes him, that is... STOP THAT! ;)

now thats one of the problems with this site..automatically an outsider is consider an invader..so what does Dakota want to do?..circle the wagons and cozy up to"JOEL'..come on JOEL. ignore this guy!! JOEL, he's not one of us!......cant anyone just keep an open mind without rallying the troops and circling the wagon?

That is about as absurd, juvenile and repressive as it gets.

Do away with someone who you don't like. This is 2013 America, not 1940 Hitler's Germany.

Which means we get to choose whose words we read or listen to.

xtremeump
 

With all of the bad hips and know it all attitudes can anyone tell me what we are talking about ? This is a great forum for us, the old gaurd will always be here and that is a great thing. Everyday the game changes we as Umpires need to keep up with it. Pause, Read, then type.

I can promise you that Tom does not believe in Hitler's Germany.....He is one of the many people that I would love to have my back in a SB game........you have officially jumped the shark.

I would think by what you have written.....you would stab me in the back....even though....you knew you were wrong.

Bye.........

I would caution you to do the same......

Joel

And with that, I believe I'll euthanize the horse.