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?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

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?

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[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.

[chapmaja]

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?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

Isn't the runner permitted to run the bases as long as it is done so properly?

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.

[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.

[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