B/r int
 

Heard a play being discussed at a clinic today, didn't agree with the ruling.

R1 on 1B, 1 out. R1 off with the pitch. Batter hits it straight up. F2 makes the catch in front of the plate & fires to 1B to double up R1. Ball hits B2 in the helmet & goes into DBT. They have a retired runner interfering and we have 3 outs.

I say if B2 is in the running lane, she's done nothing wrong and R1 gets 3B.

I say you would be correct. If the batter/runner is where she should be- no penalty.

Interfering with what?

The appeal. Though I agree with Chuck (at least mostly). Being where you're supposed to be and not dissolving is not interference. The running lane is irrelevant on this play though. The BR could be out of the lane and still not be guilty of interference. The running lane only applies on throws to retire the BR.

I'm glad you brought that up. The running-lane rule, as I know it, is to prevent the fielder at 1B from being interfered with a throw from home plate.
I was not sure if it pertained to the attempt to retire the B/R only.

The 3' lane is to prevent the BR from interfering with the ability of a defender to receive a throw at 1B, from anywhere.

I agree, this is not INT unless the retired player did something to INT. Running to 1st on a batted ball is NOT an act of INT.

Thanks guys, Mike, do you concur that the running lane is not a deciding factor in this play (because the running lane rule only pertains to retiring the B/R)? 8.2.E doesn't mention that detail.
The verbiage does read "interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base", I do infer that to mean "the throw to put out the B/R", as opposed to "a throw at 1B"

Why?

The issue is not any throw to first vs only a throw to retire a B/R, it's that you don't have a batter-runner anymore after the fly ball is caught.

The running lane is only applicable to the batter-runner. Once the fly ball is caught, you have a retired runner and that runner must commit an act of interference in order to interfere. I would say that simply continuing to run toward first base does not qualify, especially with the play and the ball behind him/her.

Indeed. Ask those at the clinic how this is any different than F6 retiring R1 on a force at 2nd and then throwing the ball into R1 while trying to retire the BR.

Posted a similar question several years ago and was eaten alive by umpires who believe that retired runner MUST "disappear".

I don't know of many on this forum who have advocated an instantly vanishing runner. Quite the contrary. Many of us have preached how it is just not possible.

Altor, guarantee this same group would be calling both outs on that play.
They adhere to the philosophy of "we get paid for strikes and outs".

We don't make runners disappear. Just defenders attempting to field a ball just out of their reach. :rolleyes:

Well, unless the BR takes out the defender at 1st base when they are turning a 6-4-3 double play, the odds are you won't have 3 foot lane interference. Just think of the quality of the throw...

Using that philosophy, how do they prevent (or otherwise deal with) defenders intentionally throwing the ball to hit the already out batter on her way to 1st?

...with an ejection.....

This reminds me of a discussion from a couple years ago with a fellow umpire.

R1 at second, B2 at the plate, 1 out. Full count on the batter. Called strike 3 on B2 for the second out. R1 was going on the pitch. Catcher comes up throwing to 3rd and the ball hits B2. The ruling was interference by a retired runner, R1 is called out for the third out. This brings up the disappearing batter argument.

My take, and the way I would rule on both of these plays (the OP and the discussion above), is that the retired player did nothing wrong, and the defensive player made the mistake by hitting the retired player with a throw. Now if the retired player does something to interfere then it is a different situation.

Personally this is where we need to have some common sense in umpiring.

My call, in your situation, would be INT if the batter committed an act, such as walking toward her 1B dugout, and stepped into the throw. Just standing there wondering why she looked at strike 3 wouldn't be enough for INT.

I'm basing this on "batter" rules, and not on "retired batter"rules. Please let me know of I'm wrong.

No matter when scenario, the running lane applies only to the BR and a defender receiving a throw at 1B. The minute that ball is caught, the BR no longer exists. So, you now have a retired runner question about INT. The 3' lane would be irrelevant to the point of the rule and the umpire needs to determine if the offensive player committed an act of interference and apply 8.7.P, if necessary