From another board
 

Take a look at this thread and video and tell us what you think:

how would you ruled this? - Page 2

Here is a direct link to the Video http://www.leaguelineup.com/miscinfo...&sid=170225371

The Batter of course is out.
The question then becomes did a retired player interfere with the play?

I am going to say no she did not as she was doing what she is supposed to do (run to 1st) when you hit the ball. She looks back saw she was out and stopped running. She is clearly in foul territory and did not intentionally interfere.

The PU looks kind of dumb founded. Perhaps he did not agree with BU call. I would certainly want to know how that could be BU call when it happened right in front of PU. IMHO there is no way the retired runner committed interference in this case.

Post this when people are paying attention and grab the popcorn.....;)

Speaking ASA

This is a lousy call. The retired BR did not commit an act of interference.
There really isn't anything to debate, it was an umpire either being talked into a call or doesn't know the rule.

not just dumbfounded, but just plain dumb.

he might was well have held up a sign inviting everyone and wrote on his forehead that the crew is divided.

he can has plenty of opportunity to discuss in postgame with his partner.

How do you know what he "looked" like?

What would you expect him to do, run out in the field waving his arms, screaming "no, no, no, live ball"?

Don't see either umpire killing the play, just the BU making a ruling on a play that, if you want to prioritize, wasn't his to make.

Interference on this play is not just a bad call but possibly even a rules mistake on the part of BU. I think, as PU, this warrants at least a bit of discussion to make sure it's horribly bad judgement (and thus unfixable) rather than a rules misunderstanding on his part (and thus necessarily fixable).

{Cringe}

Be careful here. A runner (or fielder, for that matter) can easily interfere (or obstruct) by "doing what she is supposed to". There are many examples, such as when a runner going straight to her next base collides with a fielder fielding the ball, or when a fielder moves into the path of the runner while trying to catch an off-line throw.

I would recommend not to use that line when justifying a call with a coach.

its in the video.

The fielder is doing what she is SUPPOSED to do the runner is not. (The Runner is supposed to avoid the contact on this play if they do not the they are not doing what they are SUPPOSED to do they are INTERFERING.)

The fielder is doing what they are supposed to do unless this act hinders the runner. ( If the throw gets their first nothing is wrong. The fielder must avoid hindering the runner with out the ball or they are guilty of OBSTRUCTION).

IF this play was not called and a coach came out to question interference on the play, my response to a coach would be in my judgment is no interference as the Batter-Runner did what she is SUPPOSED TO BY BOOK RULE.

Come on Manny get real we do not need to answer every Question here like talking to a coach unless asked how should we answer the coach!!!

Ugh. I hope you're never my umpire. I'd insist that you show me where the "book rule" (your words) defines what the batter-runner is "supposed to" do. I'd also insist that you look up the definition of batter-runner, as this player is not one at that point.

"Coach, she was doing what she's supposed to be doing" is NEVER the right answer. And it is never an explanation (even to other umpires) of why a particular call is correct.

you would instigate a discussion on the field?

Instigate?

I don't think that word means what you think it does. :)

Initiate? Depending on partner, yes. If there's any likelihood partner's decision is a rules error, we have an obligation to see it fixed. If I don't know partner, or if partner is someone I know to be new, I'm absolutely INITIATING ( :) ) a conversation with him to ask him if his decision is correct by rule. This (potentially at least) is equivalent to partner ruling someone out on IFF with 2 outs. We fix rule errors if we know a rule error has been made. We're required to.

OTOH, if this is a partner that I know to be knowledgable on the rules, I let it lie and ask him afterward why he made the ruling he made (and why he was fishing in my pond). Until then (unless asked by partner), I assume he saw something from his angle that I did not from mine that made him make this call.

Mike You are correct at the time of the throw she is a retired runner.

Rule 8-7-p
Interference by a retired runner.

When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the
interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched
at the time of the interference.

Rule Supplement 33.
INTERFERENCE.

Interference is the act of an offensive player or team member that impedes,
hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play.
Interference may be in the form of physical contact, verbal distraction, visual
distraction, or any type of distraction that hinders a fielder in the execution
of a play. Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball
anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered.

The act of a retired runner slowing and stopping in foul territory where they belong cannot be interference so by book rule no Interference.