Interference by Retired Batter/Runner?

Basically the BR did nothing wrong. The running lane doesn't come into play on a play going back home. Unless he did something strange to put himself in harm's way then it's nothing. The umpires then simply have to try to place the runners where they think they would have benn without killing the balll early. Sounds like they did a good job of that.

I agree with MST, unless he did something to interfere, he was where he belonged and I can't fault him for it.

quote:

Originally posted by MPDad05:

Still, given that interference is a matter of effect rather than intention, isn't the b/r guilty of interfering with F1's play on R3?

When it comes to a runner being hit by a throw, I do believe that it is intent, rather than effect, that governs the call.

also, just to nitpick, I believe you meant F3, not F1 fielding the ground ball.

I hope the player is ok.

I have a question on this play. Would it matter if the B/R was in fair ground or foul area when hit by the ball? What rule would apply here?

It doesn't really matter. The 3 ft line applies to a throw going to first but not back to the plate. The BR was simply running the bases normally. It would take an overt act to draw an interference call and very few runners are putting their head or chest in harm's way.

[Still, given that interference is a matter of effect rather than intention, isn't the b/r guilty of interfering with F1's play on R3? Shouldn't R3 be called out as a result? How is this any different from a runner R1 running upright into the bag in an attempt to break up a double play at second?
Thanks for your comments.[/QUOTE]

I believe the b/r going to 2nd can run upright and its not interference- just taking your life in your hands.

I hope the player is all right, musta been a scary one. There was in interesting discussion on this board a while back concerning killing this type play. Right off, I'd agree this was probably one of those times and kudos to the crew working.

This still sparks some questions for me.

Say for example it only hit the BR's arm and careened off towards the 1b dug-out or off the helmet and bounced to the back stop, shouldn't the offense have the opportunity to advance as far as they can get with possibly R2 scoring as well?


Why for example would this type play be killed so early(PRESENT PLAY EXCLUDED)? It's not (or at least appears not to be)interference, so it's a live ball.

It also sparks some interest in why not interference? Seems IMO, on a hot shot to first the BR is out quitE nearly before he would even be out of the box, so why was he struck only 8'-12' from the bag? He was already out, why was he continuing to run?

I read in J/R a line about "A runner must prove by his actions and the way he positions himself that his intent is to reach and stay on base safely. Actions that disregard this intent and show rather, an intent to interfere", he was out how could he demonstrate his intent to reach and stay on base?

Seems like an open pass for the runners to run right at the fielder attempting to make a throw, crazy, (but so is taking a pitch-HBP).
To assume players wouldn't intentionally run right at a throwing fielder is unrealistic IMO.

E.G. BR runs directly and purposely at F3 in hopes of altering the throw to F2, why not ring him up for interference? Another example BR seeing he's out stops running only 10' from HP and is contacted by the throw, or see's he's out and upon return to 3rd base dugout, jogs right in line with F3's throw, realizing the closer he is to home the tougher for F2 to handle the throw? I don't think Int. can be ruled out so easily.

Another sit. while I'm rambling (rained out tonight), why isn't the scorched line drive off the pitcher's coconut killed as quickly as this play, generally speaking anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by jjk:

Say for example it only hit the BR's arm and careened off towards the 1b dug-out or off the helmet and bounced to the back stop, shouldn't the offense have the opportunity to advance as far as they can get with possibly R2 scoring as well?

<I>If the runner has time then he should peel off to allow the rest of the play go through. It sounds like in this play the out at first was made then F3 threw home. No time to alter course. </I>



Why for example would this type play be killed so early(PRESENT PLAY EXCLUDED)? It's not (or at least appears not to be)interference, so it's a live ball.

<I>The play shouldn't in most cases be killed until action stops. I realize certain injuries cause you to kill it faster than others. A throw in the chest, although painful, probably isn't causing a major injury and a few seconds aren't to make a lick of difference. </I>


It also sparks some interest in why not interference? Seems IMO, on a hot shot to first the BR is out quitE nearly before he would even be out of the box, so why was he struck only 8'-12' from the bag? He was already out, why was he continuing to run?

I read in J/R a line about "A runner must prove by his actions and the way he positions himself that his intent is to reach and stay on base safely. Actions that disregard this intent and show rather, an intent to interfere", he was out how could he demonstrate his intent to reach and stay on base?

Seems like an open pass for the runners to run right at the fielder attempting to make a throw, crazy, (but so is taking a pitch-HBP).
To assume players wouldn't intentionally run right at a throwing fielder is unrealistic IMO.

E.G. BR runs directly and purposely at F3 in hopes of altering the throw to F2, why not ring him up for interference? Another example BR seeing he's out stops running only 10' from HP and is contacted by the throw, or see's he's out and upon return to 3rd base dugout, jogs right in line with F3's throw, realizing the closer he is to home the tougher for F2 to handle the throw? I don't think Int. can be ruled out so easily.

<i>As mentioned above if the runner does something that you think is an intentional act then most certainly call the out. However it would have to be fairly obvious like reaching with a hand or changing his course in the line to get in the way of the throw. </I>



Another sit. while I'm rambling (rained out tonight), why isn't the scorched line drive off the pitcher's coconut killed as quickly as this play, generally speaking anyway.

Thanks MST and fvb. I understand from you now that the B/R still has a right to be in the way of the throw as long as it doesn't appear intentional - i.e. he has no obligation to get out of the way of the continuing play. I don't remember reading anything about "intentional" or "deliberate" in the rule citations that have been quoted here for interference, but I accept that the rules as written may be too broad and require "interpretation."

goMO - yes, I meant F3 not F1 - although I've kept a pretty good scorebook for years, I'm obviously still learning the notation used here.

jjk has raised most of the issues that were in my mind when I originally posted, and MST has provided a consistant response to them. [I think the play was killed because most of us thought he took it in the face.] Still, I wouldn't put it past many high school players to do their best to get in the way at least for the first few seconds after they've been retired. I guess this is another example of a judgement call (related to intent.)

Archangel, I suppose you may be right about taking your life in your hands. In North Carolina high school baseball, I've seen multiple cases of the lead runner in a double play situation called for interference by continuing to run upright in the general direction of the bag (typically when they are close enough to slide and would be expected to slide if the intention was to reach safely).

When I posted this question, I was mainly interested in the difference between a runner who is still "alive" and one who has been retired. Last summer I watched a B/R fly out to right field with runners on base and then calmly saunter back toward his dugout on the third base line, only to be hit in the back by a thrown ball coming in to a play at 3B (after a little "throw-around"). Although you could hardly call his actions "intentional", he was called for interference, and the runner advancing to third was called out. This left me with the impression that a runner, once retired (or certainly within a few seconds), did have an obligation to stay the heck out of the way of any continuing play.

Here is a rule citation I copied over from the other "retired runner" thread - I don't know the source or context, and there appears to be a word or two missing.

(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

Would this apply?

You have to remember that interference on a batted ball does not need to be intentional but on a thrown ball it does. On the play at second R1 does not have to slide going into second but he does have to make sure he doesn't alter the play. In that case he can slide or peel off away from the fielder to avoid tthe call. On the play at third that you described by walking up the third base line most umpires will call the intention simply for not actively avoiding the area where the play is happening. He has the time to get somewhere out of harm's way and by not doing so he is considered to have done it intentionally.