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.

I'm not envisioning anything, just reading the OP. It clearly states the runner rounded 3rd on the throw home, not to 2nd. That is an active runner in jeopardy.

I WOULD have to see it, but if you want to work with supposition, how do you know it was obvious C wasn't throwing to 3B if her attention and throw was drawn by the retired player? I've often seen a catcher make a throw to 3B when it seemed obvious there was no play. But what may seem obvious to you may not be to the catcher, OR the runner who make get caught sleeping.

As noted, HTBT, but the team violating the rule should not get the benefit of any doubt.

So I'm a little confused on your take on this. (And frankly it's always been a little obscure). So if the runner is not in jeopardy at the time of the throw (laying on the ground having just slid into third and not even getting up), and then the offense draws an illegal throw to second and then the runner from third gets up and runs home, do you have interference? And how long can you wait? For example, suppose the throw goes into center field but the runner is still getting up so she doesn't move yet and then the center fielder misplays the throw that never would have happened and now the runner goes home.

I'm addressing the play at hand where a play may have been available. In you scenario in SP, if the only active runner is laying on the ground or just standing on the base, I'm killing the ball. I'd probably do the same thing in FP.

Me too.

Honestly, this exact scenario has always felt like a hole in the rules. At the moment the throw is made on the retired runner, there is no play available... thus no interference. But the poor throw CREATED a play, and created an advantage unintended by the rules. I've come across this exact scenario three times. Once when I was relatively new, and the more experienced PU killed the play immediately and we discussed in post game. Once when I was the experienced guy - and I killed the play ... and discussed post-game. And once when I was UIC at a tourney - the younger guys let play continue and no one protested so it didn't come to me... until the post game.

Seems this could clearly be written into the rules or at least be given a case play.

I can see how, at the moment I called "Out" (at 1B), all attention then went to throwing the ball home (with the associated screaming and yelling), so it's POSSIBLE the BR didn't hear that she was out.

If that's not the case, then the point of her continuing to 2B was SOLELY to interfere.

It wasn't a bang-bang at 1B, my call was audible, so I didn't feel it was a "gotcha" call at 2B...

Still, the reason I was questioning myself (and posting here) was the fact that R1 didn't break for home on the throw. If she did, I'd've had no doubt.

Thanks for your debate, as always.

Killing the play feels right. But is there any rule support for it at all? I suppose it just becomes an inadvert call of time, but doing that on purpose feels somehow sketchy.

10.4.a

I'm not a big fan of the "anything not covered by the rules" rule.... but this one seems like one of those cases.

Are you killing it for the dead ball interference call in the OP or some other reason?

OC: Why are you killing the play & preventing my runner on 3rd from advancing?

BU: Your retired runner was continuing to run, and drew the throw.

Knowledgable DC, overhearing the conversation: That's in black and white in the book, Blue! R1 should be out then!

Show me where it says, coach, in black and white, that R1 should be out at the moment we stopped play?

(Please note that the operative word in the rule that covers a retired runner drawing a throw is "COULD BE", and not IS.)

As they both noted, they're killing it because it's a situation not covered in the rules for which the equitable penalty is to make the ball dead. A retired runner drawing a throw that isn't interference is not covered in the rules ...

But then a non-retired runner who runs to second to draw a throw that isn't interference isn't covered in the rules either, but we wouldn't kill it then. ;)

And this is key. The rule says it could be, not that it is INT. It is only INT if the umpire says it is INT