Interference?

[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.