Interference?

[MD Longhorn]

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Force out if F2 trying to throw and not tag; so R1 is retired runner.

Or, F2 making a mistake, R1 not retired.

Either way, R1 hindered F2 instead of avoiding, so probably.

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.

[Manny A]

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.

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Force out if F2 trying to throw and not tag; so R1 is retired runner.

Or, F2 making a mistake, R1 not retired.

Either way, R1 hindered F2 instead of avoiding, so probably.

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

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Manny A

...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.

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!

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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?

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?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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

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

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.

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[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?