2 rare calls, same game
 

1. C position, R1 on 2B, grounder to F6, half-hearted check on the runner & fires to 1B. Out by half a stride, I call it loudly & distinctly, as F3 fires home (R1 rounding 3B & holding). B2 continues on to 2B, F2 fires to 2B. Dead ball, R1 out as well.
2. No double-bag at 1B. A position, BR beats the throw, but steps where the orange normally is. DC howling that she's out for missing the base (no attempt to tag the BR before she returned to the bag).

At this point they're all sure I'm making rules up as I go along...

Question... in case 1, would you have waited to see if R1 broke for home on the throw from F2 before making that call? She didn't in my case.

Are you saying you can't interfere with a non-play?

ASA 8-7-P When, after bing declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opporutnity to make a play on another runner.
NOTE: A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter runner who is entitile to run on the dropped third strike rule.


Based on your addition to the bottom of your plays, it appears the runner at 3rd never made an attempt to advance. If that is the case, what possible opportunity to make a play did the the runner advancing and the throw interfere with? As the note at the end of the rule states, a runner continuing to run may be a form of interference, not is interference.

They would be right. This call was not correct.

So if R1 broke for home, it would've been correct?

Probably, but not necessarily yet. Did the extraneous runner interfere with a play is the question. Breaking for home ... not yet. They might still head back upon a throw home. But if they interfere with a play, then yes.

This is along the lines of a base coach running down the 3B line & drawing a throw. It would be more of an impulsive act by the thrower, seeing a running non-teammate out of the corner of her eye and throwing.
The note of the rule doesn't seem to require an "act' of interference besides the running itself.

True... but in all honestly this is not a call that is made very often.

Once every 26 years for me.

WHERE does the rule state that the possible play must be on a runner advancing? If the ball is live and a runner is off the base, a play is available.

The retired player continued to run and drew a throw while there was another runner who was still active.

If you want to wait to see what happens, how long to you wait? How many steps or distance from a base must a runner be before you make a decision?

True... in my case F2 could have taken the shorter route & fired to 3B instead, if not for the retired BR's distraction (interference).

Mike, the play I'm envisioning is the catcher with the ball, the runner slowing at 3rd - obviously no play at 3rd. F2 sees a runner heading for 2nd and fires. Surprised runner at 3rd sees the throw, takes a step or two toward home with the ball in the air, and decides not to go. There was never a play that was interfered with here.

Obviously, there ARE situations where a play is available --- but deciding which are which is part of why we are there. A runner one step off 3rd with a catcher that's obviously not throwing to third is not going to be played on in real life, so i would not call that an available play. Do you disagree?

Say F2 airmails the throw into centerfield, allowing R1 to trot home... that throw would never have made absent the violation.

Was the throw still because of the violation? Then, why different?

I'd say the throw, good or bad, was due to the violation, in my explanation to the OC.

And I did.