|
|||
I AGREE with this. On the other board, I'm just about the only one to agree with this. To me - an inch or even a single step beyond home is similar to the sliding runner at 2nd who was JUST put out an instant earlier before colliding with F6 (or F4) at 2nd - not INT. But I'm in the extreme minority there.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
I would have no problem ruling no INT should the runner in your OP play slide into home. That demonstrates to me she was trying to score more than trying to affect the throw. If you're going to allow her to run through home and crash into F2 an inch or a step from the plate, then you should allow her to crash into F2 even three steps from the plate.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
Let me ask this - what if the collision between runner and catcher happened while the runner was ON home plate? Ignore? Or interference? And if different from your answers and the original question --- why. After all, the instant her foot touched home, she's just as much a scored runner as the runner who is 1 inch beyond home or 1 step beyond home.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Here is a twist on this discussion.
Nobody out, R1 on third, R2 on second, R3 on first, B4 hits a single to right field . R1 scores, R2 comes running home and the throw to the catcher is off line, forcing the catcher 1 step off the first base line with no chance to throw out R2 at the plate. B4 sees the throw home and tries advancing to second. R2, who has missed the plate, interferes with F2 throwing to get the runner advancing to second. What happens if the umpire declares R2 out for interference by a retired (scored) runner. The run would count, and the runner closest to home would be declared out. Now the defense appeals that R2 never actually touched the plate. What do we do in this situation. Do we still have interference by a retired runner (scored runner), or since she did not legally score do we just have interference. The out is not made until the appeal is made, so do we still have interference by a scored runner, or do we have interference and what do we do with R1 who is standing at third base? More importantly, how do you explain to the coach what you and called? |
|
|||
Quote:
Here's a FED case play: 8.6.18 SITUATION A: R1 is on third base. B2 hits a slow roller to the shortstop who attempts to throw R1 out at the plate. F2 receives the throw behind the plate. Realizing she cannot make a play on R1, she turns to throw B2 out who is advancing to second and (a) is run into by R1 after R1 has crossed the plate causing her to drop the ball (the contact is not malicious); (b) is maliciously run into by R1 after R1 has crossed the plate. RULING: The run would score in (a) and (b), because R1 interfered after touching the plate. If, in the umpire's judgment, the interference prevented F2 from making a play on B2, the umpire shall call B2 out. In (b), R1 is ejected for malicious contact. (3-6-18). Seems to me this play is very similar to your OP play. What I highlighted in red pretty much sums up that they consider this interference.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Would you penalize a player going into 2nd standing up that was NOT retired, but then collided with a fielder trying to throw from there?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
So how is this case play any different from the OP play, unless you argue that F2's throw was not an attempt to throw out the BR going to first base on the uncaught third strike?
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
In fact, one could easily argue that a runner who goes in standing up at second and colliding with the fielder is actually showing intent to interfere, and intent is not a criterion that must be met when it comes to interference with a fielder throwing the ball.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
In the case of the OP, I don't see the ruling being materially different between F2 being behind the plate vs in front of the plate ("behind" and "in front" are from the runner's perspective), other than the change in applicable rule from a runner to a "retired" runner (i.e. runner who has scored) colliding with a fielder in possession of the ball. You have a fielder in possession of the ball and a runner colliding with the fielder. So, apart from any penalty associated with the collision itself (e.g. malicious, etc.), you have the question: was this interference? Which leads to: what was the act of interference, and what was the play being interfered with? Frankly, the OP was too skimpy on the details to answer either question, IMO.
__________________
Tom |
|
|||
Quote:
Is this a fair ruling? Most likely not, but the rules don't specifically allow a runner coming home to run through the base, but they do seem to prohibit the runner from coming home and then interfering with a fielder making a play on another runner. Here is something else to consider. How is home plate different than second or third. If a runner ran through second or third and contacted a fielder making a play on another runner, after having been retired, we have interference by a retired runner. The same principal applies to the play at home plate. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
So
You'll penalize a runner for doing what she is supposed to do...run the bases? A runner is NOT required to slide...ever. So, by simply running the bases and touching them in legal order you're going to get an out?
|
|
|||
No, because the runner has no legal right to run through home plate and interfere with a fielder making a play, thus she is not properly running the bases. Nobody says she has to slide, however can can not interfere with a fielder making a play. Sliding is simply one way she can avoid interfering, so would stopping right on the plate and than stepping backward to avoid contact. Easily done at full speed? Nope, but better than running through the plate and interfering with a player making a play on another runner.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Umpire Interference / Batter Interference | bob jenkins | Baseball | 17 | Mon Feb 06, 2012 09:57pm |
batters interference/interference by teammate | _Bruno_ | Baseball | 7 | Mon Apr 07, 2008 07:28am |
Interference | bluehair | Baseball | 11 | Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:30am |
Runner interference versus umpire interference | Jay R | Baseball | 1 | Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm |
Interference? | blue3 | Baseball | 27 | Wed Dec 22, 2004 06:06pm |