Interference?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Obviously, this would all have to be something to be seen, but my response to the protest would be exactly what I was thinking at the time of the call, did not see or judge an act of interference occurred.

I honestly don't see how anyone could justify a runner who just scored colliding with a fielder trying to throw the ball to make a play on another runner as NOT being an act of interference.

Heck, using that narrow interpretation of "act", you could argue that a runner going from second to third who runs into F6 who is waiting on a ground ball as not being an act of interference. After all, she was simply running the bases.

Well, while running bases, there are certain expectations, by rule, that are levied on those runners. One of them is to not run into that F6 while she's trying to field that ground ball. Another is to not run into that F2 who is trying to throw out the BR.

Why would the OP be any different than a retired runner at second base running into the pivot person as she attempts to throw to first to complete the double play? For that matter, let's say that instead of it being an uncaught third strike in the OP, make it a batted ball with the bases loaded that hit off F1 and went back to home, and F2 fields it, steps on the plate to retire R1 going home, and then that retired R1 runs into F2 as F2 is throwing to first from the same locations as in the OP. Would those qualify as "acts" of interference?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I honestly don't see how anyone could justify a runner who just scored colliding with a fielder trying to throw the ball to make a play on another runner as NOT being an act of interference.

Heck, using that narrow interpretation of "act", you could argue that a runner going from second to third who runs into F6 who is waiting on a ground ball as not being an act of interference. After all, she was simply running the bases.

Well, while running bases, there are certain expectations, by rule, that are levied on those runners. One of them is to not run into that F6 while she's trying to field that ground ball. Another is to not run into that F2 who is trying to throw out the BR.

Why would the OP be any different than a retired runner at second base running into the pivot person as she attempts to throw to first to complete the double play? For that matter, let's say that instead of it being an uncaught third strike in the OP, make it a batted ball with the bases loaded that hit off F1 and went back to home, and F2 fields it, steps on the plate to retire R1 going home, and then that retired R1 runs into F2 as F2 is throwing to first from the same locations as in the OP. Would those qualify as "acts" of interference?

The issue is the play being made. I am not considering the throw a play if the batter runner is a step away from first when the throw is being delivered. I think this is where umpires have to use their judgment. If F2 has a chance to throw a player out, then yes, it is interference.

I would be getting with my partner on this to determine if we really had interference or if we had nothing.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The issue is the play being made. I am not considering the throw a play if the batter runner is a step away from first when the throw is being delivered. I think this is where umpires have to use their judgment. If F2 has a chance to throw a player out, then yes, it is interference.

I would be getting with my partner on this to determine if we really had interference or if we had nothing.

I don't buy that logic. There is only one reason F2 would be throwing the ball to first, and that's because she's making a play on the BR. We don't judge whether or not the BR would have been safe on the play as criteria to determine if the play would have been successful or not.

A runner goes into second base standing up and collides into F4 as F4 turns to make a throw to first on the DP. Does the BU go to his/her BU partner to determine if the BR would have easily beaten the throw?

RH Batter steps out of the box to look at her coach at third for a sign, and she causes F2 to throw wildly as F2 attempts to pick off a runner at third. Does the PU get his/her BU's opinion if the runner would have made it back to third easily?

I hope you answered No on those examples. I have never seen in a game, nor never have been told in a clinic, that partners consult with each other prior to making an interference ruling. Heck, in the OP, you never know if the BR is going to miss first after she overruns it, or if she's going to turn toward second after she makes it to first. The catcher's throw would certainly be a play attempt then, would it not?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I don't buy that logic. There is only one reason F2 would be throwing the ball to first, and that's because she's making a play on the BR. We don't judge whether or not the BR would have been safe on the play as criteria to determine if the play would have been successful or not.

A runner goes into second base standing up and collides into F4 as F4 turns to make a throw to first on the DP. Does the BU go to his/her BU partner to determine if the BR would have easily beaten the throw?

RH Batter steps out of the box to look at her coach at third for a sign, and she causes F2 to throw wildly as F2 attempts to pick off a runner at third. Does the PU get his/her BU's opinion if the runner would have made it back to third easily?

I hope you answered No on those examples. I have never seen in a game, nor never have been told in a clinic, that partners consult with each other prior to making an interference ruling. Heck, in the OP, you never know if the BR is going to miss first after she overruns it, or if she's going to turn toward second after she makes it to first. The catcher's throw would certainly be a play attempt then, would it not?

The part about consulting with your partner is a red herring (IMO), since the discussion is what is and what is not interference, not what you can and what you cannot see.

Without a play, there is no interference. That is basic. Merely throwing the ball around is not making a play. If there is no reasonable possibility of an out, what is the play?