Interference on Retired Runner

Take the result of the play: 1 out, 2 runs in, runner at second.

The crux of your argument is that the defense didn't know R1 was out. If they did know he was out, they surely shouldn't be playing on him. If the defense didn't know, why should we expect the offense to know?

OBR rules explicitly declares that a retired baserunner does not interfere simply by the act of continuing to run the bases. I'm not aware of a similar comment in FED rules, but it is treated the same way.

quote:

Ball stays in play, and while 1B retrieves the ball R2 advances and scores. R1 (who was retired on the force out at 2nd base) is jogging in baseline towards 3rd base, so our 1B throws to 3B who attempts to tag the already retired runner. R1 (retired runner) then retreats and gets in a rundown between 2nd and 3rd which allows the batter to advance from 1st base to 2nd base. What's the call?

The initiaion of the run down has me leaning toward the int. call.

HTBT honestly, as 3FingeredGlove say's the meer act of continuing to run isn't by itself int. and if R1 simple allows himself to be tagged again as heads for his dug out, then play on IMO.

I hedge with the HTBT, because if EVERYBODY in the place knew R1 was out, including R1. Then once the rundown began, I might stop it right there and ring up the BR for R1's int.

You say R1 "jogging" (I read as not running the bases) so, sounds like he knows he's out and may have been baiting the whole way, things, I'd have to see to help determine int or nothing.

This is probably BU's call, so he'd be better in tune with intentions; example; if his call and signal were loud and clear, R1, SS, 2B all know he's out, then very possible the int.

If BU's call was say signal only with a weak verbal, he
(BU) may feel he started all this trouble in the first place and attempt to correct it. If he simply signaled and spun to follow the throw it's easy to understand, how R1 might have "thought" he was out until the D played on him. Tough without seeing this whole thing play out.

But you are right on the nail with, if "int." score the runs, and ring up BR, 2 outs nobody on.
If R2 had not touched the plate at the time of the int. then ring him up, 2 out R1.

What was the ruling on the field?

I was fine with it up until the point where the guy got in the rundown. Had R1 just continued off the field, I would have thought "shame on us" but once he got in the rundown, I felt that created confusion by a runner who knew he was out, hence I thought R4 should at least return to 1st base.

JJK....ruling on the field was to leave it alone. No ruling on interference, although I think it was more of an "uh-oh". So, no call...let it stand. As I said, it was the rundown part that bothered me. Simply jogging off the field (even if he is still in the baseline, which he was) does not create an issue, but he was jogging in the baseline and clearly initiated a rundown (3 throws), so I thought interference should have been called. Otherwise, there is no way that R4 advances to 2B. Also, we were questioning R2 scoring, so I appreciate your comment on that. Nobody is really clear on when he crossed the plate in relation to the first throw to 3B, but our argument was not about him scoring, just the R4. thanks...

Getting in the rundown is probably going to cause an interference. If the run hasn't scored at the TOI then bang him out, return B4 to first. If the run has scored then bang B4.

No, it is probably not interference. Even if the runner initially thinks he is out, and is jogging toward 3rd base, once the defense plays on him, he can and should presume that he is in fact not out. Perhaps he misunderstood the umpire; perhaps the umpire missed the out; perhaps the fielder dropped the ball.

Nobody has so far suggested that the runner has done anything wrong by jogging toward third base (and indeed a retired runner has a responsibility to avoid any subsequent action), so the defense was not drawn into playing on him. Clearly the defense owns the responsibility for their action in throwing to third. Furthermore, the runner has good reason to suspect that he has not been put out, because the defense is playing on him, and the rundown (rather than giving up) is just good baserunning.

all very good input, and clearly this ranks right up there on the list of "judgement" calls.

3FingeredGlove...based on your comments, what would justify an interference call? Seems to meet that based on how the rule is written, anything short of a baserunner who slides into a base, is called out, and then pretty much tackles the fielder to hinder any subsequent plays is just deemed as "continuation" with the emphasis on the defense to know that the runner is already out. Obviously somebody put that part of the rule in there for a reason. Can you help me understand the situations that the rule is designed to protect against? It almost seems to me that I should coach my kids to continue running the bases hard even though they have been called out until the defense stops the action (btw, that goes against everything I teach my boys about respecting the game, but it does seem like a legal way to "finish" a play, right)?

What would justify an interference call? Well, in the OP situation, if R3 and R2 had scored, and then a) R3 started running back to 3rd, or b) R2 started dancing between home and 3rd, I think that would clearly be interference. The only reason for R3 to still be running would be to try to touch home, under the assumption that he had missed it. R2 has only two possible objectives--retouching third or touching home, if he thought he missed one of them.

One can construct other situations in which the runner might try to act as if he were one of the non-retired runners. That would be interference also.

Notice also that I said "probably". In the OP, if the umpire believes that R1`has engaged in a run-down while knowing full well that he is out, then it is interference.

A related situation is R1, less than 2 outs, a 0-2 count on the batter, and a swinging dropped strike. If the batter runs to first, and is played on, with R1 advancing to 2nd, very few umpires would call R1 out for the retired batter's interference. In fact, in discussing this situation in umpire boards, the disagreement centers on whether to let play continue, or try to re-emphasize that the batter is out. I suppose that the batter gets leniency here because his correct course of action depends on the number of outs, and people tend to forget that (especially the spectators!)

Thanks...everyone's feedback has been helpful. Somehow I hope to never encounter this again, but the responses have been enlightening, so I appreciate you taking the time to reply. And if it does happen again, I'll be sure to acknowledge you guys in the discussion with blue!!!!

everything happens again in baseball......it just might take a while....