Interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

At least with the sliding runner, you can argue that the preponderance of her intent was to go into the bag. If, OTOH, she had gone into the bag standing up and collided with F6 or F4, I don't see a valid argument saying she didn't interfere.

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.

So ... you're REQUIRING a slide? Given that we all know running is faster than sliding, and we have a catcher near home but not (apparently) trying to place a tag - why would you insist the legal runner slide?

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So ... you're REQUIRING a slide? Given that we all know running is faster than sliding, and we have a catcher near home but not (apparently) trying to place a tag - why would you insist the legal runner slide?

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.

There are already rules against collisions in the vast majority of rule sets out there. How is this any different? Why would we penalize a runner going into second standing up after being retired and colliding with the pivot person on the DP, or a runner going into home standing up and colliding with the catcher who is waiting to tag the runner, or a number of other scenarios where the runner (or retired runner) is involved in a collision? The only time collisions are just "wrecks" is when the ball, fielder and runner arrive at the same time and space.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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 probably would, yes. The rules stating a runner interferes with a fielder throwing the ball (NFHS 8-6-10, ASA 8-7-J-2) have no exceptions in effect when the fielder is at the runner's base and the runner goes in standing up. The only exception I know of is when a runner executes a legal slide.

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

...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.

Like a lot of case plays, it states facts in a way to set up a clear ruling. F2 has a play on B1 because the case play said she did.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Like a lot of case plays, it states facts in a way to set up a clear ruling. F2 has a play on B1 because the case play said she did.

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?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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?

Part of the discussion in this thread was whether F2 had a play on the BR. Some, maybe even you? (too lazy to page back through the thread) claimed that the throw itself was ipso facto a play whether there was any realistic chance of recording an out or not. I disagree with that notion (although Fed did confuse the waters on this point with their interpretation of the running lane violation on a base on balls...).

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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Part of the discussion in this thread was whether F2 had a play on the BR. Some, maybe even you? (too lazy to page back through the thread) claimed that the throw itself was ipso facto a play whether there was any realistic chance of recording an out or not. I disagree with that notion (although Fed did confuse the waters on this point with their interpretation of the running lane violation on a base on balls...).

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.

I think I mentioned this point earlier on in the thread. In my opinion on this play, the fielder must have a legit chance to make a play on the runner for there to be interference. If the fielder throws to a base and the runner (or batter runner) is already at or past that base, or there was no chance to get that player, there is no interference because no play can be made because there is no way to retire the batter runner.

[DeputyUICHousto]

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?