Interference?
 

From another board... ASA, FED, NCAA interps.

R1 on 3rd, no outs. Uncaught third strike. R1 comes home and touches the plate and then:

A) inches beyond the plate;
B) a step beyond the plate;
C) 3 steps beyond the plate ...

Collides with F2 while F2 is making a throw, causing the throw to go errant. In none of the 3 cases was there any intent on R1's part.

Interference?

I fail to understand anything you just said. But I'll start by saying there is no force out possibility at all in this scenario.

Speaking ASA, the prevailing rule is 8-7-P:

"[The runner is out] 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."

So I would say the BR is out in all three situations.

Similar language is found under NFHS 8-6-16c and NCAA 12.8.7. And none of them require intent on the offensive player.

It can't be this straightforward, though, if you're bringing the question here from another board. I'm curious if there's a hang-up with intent.

Our High School IC sent a similar play this past week as part of his play of the week series..

R1 is on 3rd base and R2 is on 2nd base with 2 outs. B5 strikes out on pitch in the dirt that gets about 10 feet away from catcher. B5 runs toward first base as R1 and R2 attempt to advance to the next base. As the catcher goes to retrieve the ball, R1 runs home and scores standing up. The catcher, while trying to get an angle to make the throw to first, runs back towards home and stops on the 3rd base line extended, just outside the left handed batters box to make the throw. The runner and catcher collide with each other. What's your call?

My answer was.
Interference by R1 - run scores call R2 out award BR 1B
As we should all know once the runner scored they are considered a retired runner and as such the runner closest to home is out.

This sounds right to me if and only if the throw from the catcher that was interfered with had a shot at getting BR2 or BR2 advances to second because of the interference. If F2 was throwing back to F1, then where's the play.

OK, I'll have to stop rushing when I don't have time. Clarify later.

I have not yet found the "other board" where this play was posted, but my guess on the "hang-up" is that is was posted by a parent who just can't believe:

A. that the run scores....

and/or

B. How can it be interference?!?! My little Susie was just running home like she was supposed to be doing!

:D

I think it's a pretty safe assumption to make, given the scenario, that F2's throw was for a play on the BR going to first base. I seriously doubt that F2 would be throwing the ball back to F1 on an uncaught third strike where the BR is advancing.

That depends on how long it takes to recover the ball. And for that matter on the level of play. JV game last week, bases loaded 2 outs, dropped third strike at the catcher's feet. She picks up the ball steps across home plate without touching it and while straddling the bag throws into right field. I don't make assumptions about players who can't catch the 3rd strike :D

Stop and think about this.

If the catcher is that close to the plate with a runner approaching and there are no outs, why would the catcher be throwing the ball to 1B instead of protecting the plate?

And why wouldn't the runner be going full out which means there is no way contact is going to be avoided in the first two scenarios...and before anyone brings up "sliding" it is going to be irrelevant to an INT call without the C attempting to retire the runner.

Does that really matter? Are we to make rulings on things like interference and obstruction based upon what a runner or fielder should have done from a smart baserunning or smart fielding perspective?

I don't think that absolves the runner from anything. Frankly, she probably shouldn't have run home in the first place if the ball was right there and the fielder could have easily tagged her. The fact that she made that choice and put herself in a position where she could easily violate ASA 8-7-P, NFHS 8-6-16c, etc., is her fault. After scoring, she cannot interfere, which is what she did.

Yes. Should the runner not be permitted to attempt to advance because the catcher isn't smart enough to make the correct play?

Okay, make that call. I'm not without some indication the player committed and act of interference

Fair points... so are you saying A and B are not INT? (And if so ... how to defend that call if it's protested?)

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?

I think the big point were batting around here is simply: What rights does a retired runner or a runner who has scored have on the field? As far as I can see they only have the right to not interfere with the offense and/or the ball.

How about this:

No outs, bases loaded. B4 gets base hit to F8. R1 from third scores easily. R2 from second rounds third and heads home. F8 fields ball and throws home but the throw is short and F2 moves inside the diamond in front of home plate to catch the throw. R2 slides across home plate. F2 misses the catch and the ball goes to the backstop with nobody backing up F2. F2 turns and goes after the ball but runs into R2 who is getting up from her slide into home. F2 falls to the ground as R3 comes home and the BR moves to third.


A. R1 and R2 score, ball is dead when F2 trips over R2. R3 is out for R2s interference and BR returns to second.
B. R1 scores. R2 is out for interference with F2. R3 returns the 3B and BR returns to 2B.
C. R1 and R2 score. Ball is dead when F2 trips over R2. R3 returns to 3B and BR returns to 2B.
D. Play stands as R2 did not intentionally interfere she was just returning to her team area.
:confused:

My answer: As I visualize your play. E) Play stands as R2 did not commit an act of interference. She isn't required to disappear or remain motionless after scoring. The catcher tripped over her. Now had she moved into the catcher while the catcher was over her then that could be an act of interference. Or if she had moved in front of her. But laying on the ground isn't an act of interference.

Under the high school rules, the only way this is interference is if the act is intentional. 8-6-10d.

Check that, maybe 8-6-10d isn't the correct rule, 8-6-16c applies, and that would indicate it is interference.

Under high school rules yes this is interference under the definition of the rules. Rule 8-6-16 c would cover this.

"After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive players opportunity to make a play on another runner. ...."

This rule does not require intent to be called, only that the defensive player be interfered with.

In the case you mention, all three cases have the run scoring and the interference being called, with the runner closest to home being declared out (according to the strict definition of the rules).


With all of that said, I would be getting with my partner on this play to determine if there was a legitimate play to be made on the runner when the contact occurred. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the offensive team in this situation that a legitimate play was not being made. To be a legitimate play, in my opinion it must meet the requirement of 2-47-2c "an attempt by a defensive player to retire a runner or batter runner.". If the batter runner is 1 step from 1st base when the interference occurs, I am not ruling that this constitutes a play, thus no interference. If F2 is throwing the ball and the batter-runner is half way to 1st, then I have a play and thus by rule I have to have 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.

If the catcher is attempting to throw to first base and is contacted, she is attempting to make a play (on the BR), therefore by rule contact by the retired (scored) runner is in fact interference and the runner closest to home shall be declared out (NFHS rules).

Speaking ASA, IMO, it is a DMC. If the catcher had time to obtain control of the loose ball and turn to throw, that means she could have just as easily put out the approaching runner. The runner is going to be moving at top speed assuming the catch may attempt to make a tag. And I don't care if it wasn't wise for the runner to attempt to score, stupidity isn't against the rules. If it were, many games wouldn't last an hour :)

The NFHS rule, including the casebook, makes no allowance for common sense or real life action. However, the definition of Interference in the NFHS book notes it is an ACT of interference which ILLEGALLY impedes, hinders or confuses the fielder. What is illegal about the runner's advancement to score and not break a leg while doing so :)

Also, do you call the runner closest to home out every time a defender has to avoid a sliding runner to complete a throw to 1B? If not, its the same rule, so why not?

Nothing is illegal about the advancement to score. The issue is that the runner is no longer advancing to score when she has already scored, so talking about advancing to score and contacting a defensive player after she has scored is not the same thing.

This simple fact is the rules say one thing, and the rules are very black and white. Real life (and softball) are played in color. As I have said, I better be absolutely sure that the catcher actually has a play that can be made on a runner before I'm calling interference on the runner.

Let's look at this on a slightly different play.

R1 on 2nd, R2 on first, B3 hits a line shot base hit to right field. F7 throws home trying to get R1 coming home. The throw is off target and F2 has to step behind the plate to catch the throw. Knowing she has no chance to reach and tag R1 before she touches home, F2 immediately catches the ball and tried throwing to F6 covering second base in an attempt to get B3 stretching the single into a double. R1, after touching home plate collides with F2 making the throw.

Since F2 is making a play on B3 this could be interference correct? The contact by R1 interfered with F2 making a play on B3. What happens if after this contact F2's throw ends up in right field and now R2 and B3 both come up. The contact (which isn't intentional) does interfere with the play being made by F2 on B3. (Again, this may not be the smartest play by F2, since throwing to second base may allow R2 to advance home).

When you reference illegally in the definition of interference, you mention the runner advancing home is not illegal. As I stated above, the act of coming home is not illegal, but the act of contacting the player after touching home can be illegal because of the black and white of the rule.

This again goes to the color vs black and white portion of the argument. Rules are black and white and don't always translate to a color world.

In the case of a sliding player, I think no matter what, we have to look at intent. If the player is put out before the slide, then slides and contacts the defender do we have a) a player trying to get out of the way of a possible throw over her head to first base, or b) a player trying to intentionally contact a player to prevent a double play from occurring? Is the slide legal or illegal? If it is an illegal slide, then we have interference.

Now if the player slides and the defensive player gets to the base just ahead of the runner and contact occurs, we likely have nothing, provided it is a legal slide.


Again color vs black and white.

So, the answer is no. Sliding simply protects a runner from a collision ruling, not INT. I agree that you need to look at the play, but not necessarily intent. You need to look for an act that causes the INT. Of course, if you see a runner and you believe there was intent, then you obviously had an act of interference.

Basically yes.

So you don't expect a runner going from base to base to go poof, but at home plate you expect a runner to stop on a dime or just disappear the moment they touch the plate.

I didn't mention anything other than what the rule states, not me. Personally, I believe it is an ambiguous statement. Again, I'm still looking for an act of interference.

BTW, here is what I believe to be an interesting post from another board:

I called Jay Miner this afternoon and he got a good chuckle when I asked him this question. (concerning removing "intent" and the word "act" being included in ASA's definition of INT)
For those unfamiliar with Jay Miner, he is the chief rules interpreter for all public school softball in New York State ( which uses A.S.A. rules) as well as a frequent writer for Referee magazine.
Jay told me that it was at his urging that ASA removed "intent" from interference, but it was in regard to a scored runner who interferes with a catcher attempting to make another throw.
Jay never imagined that they would remove intentional from thrown ball interference and admitted that it opens up a can of worms--for example, it could lead to fielders intentionally throwing at a runner trying to draw a call.

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?

Interesting
 

in A and B this would have to be a HTBT call...however, if the catcher is only inches and/or a step beyond the plate where is the runner supposed to go? Isn't the runner permitted to run the bases as long as it is done so properly?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

The key word is properly. Is the base runner legally allowed to run through home and contact a defensive player making a play on another runner? No. Therefore no matter if it is an inch, a foot, or 10 feet, once the runner has scored and then makes contact, she has interfered, and this is interference by a retired runner, thus the run scores, the runner closest to home is declared out due to the interference by a retired runner.

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.

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.

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.