Skip to main content

Runner at 2nd and 1st, no outs ball hit to shallow LF, the runner at 2nd goes half way, the ball hits just in front of the LF and just behind the SS, the SS throws the ball to 3rd forcing the runner out.
The runner however gets up and starts to run home, the 3rd baseman throws home (apparently not knowing the runner has bee called out, even though the ump gave a hand signal but nothing verbal), the runner(who I will also assume didn't know he was out) gets in a run down between 3rd and home. Finally our catcher realizes that the runner was called out, and attemps to throw the ball to 3rd because the runner that was on first has now attempted to advance to 3rd, our catcher has to throw around the runner who has already been called out.

I say the runner trying to advance is out as well because the runner that was called out initially caused a play to be made on him even though he was already called out, and because on the throw back to 3rd, he obstructed our catcher.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

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.

The defense has to know what's going on, you stated the catcher finally realized the runner was out, how'd that happen?

If the retired runner did nothing to hinder F2's throw other than being there, nothing, ya gotta throw around runners even if their retired.
"by that act alone" continuing to advance in and of itself...Getting in a rundown is not advancing, if he's trying to go BACK to 3rd, at that point he is no longer attempting to advance, also his running back and forth between the bases allowed the other runner to advance, and when we tried to make a play at 3rd the runner who was out was about 5 feet from the bag as the other runner was approaching 3rd, our catcher had to step to the side to throw around the runner.

Again, "by that act ALONE" has been way violated. IMHO.
quote:
Originally posted by grateful:
Without looking up the rule here, sorry guys......but isn't there something in the rule book about a retired runner "causing confusion on the part of the defense" by continuing to run.......etc??

Maybe you guys can help me with that one.


Yep, it's 7.09(e) and is says he is allowed to.
in the original play I got nothin except for an umpire who should have been louder.

the kid ran, but the defense caused the rundown. If they hadn't attempted to tag the retired runner he would have continued eventually to his dugout, but by trying to tag him the defense confused the runner into thinking he was not yet out. I'm not gonna fault him for it. Attempting to advance, even if that involves a rundown, is allowed. Now if he had tackled the guy who was trying to make a play on him or had swatted at the ball as it went past him it is a different story. I reiterate, the defense is at least as much at fault for the confusion here as the runner, and I don't want to reward them for doing something they shouldn't have done (trying to retire an already retired runner).
Last edited by fvb10
(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.

I new I was correct on this, the runner that was out was running back and forth between home and 3rd, he also tried to go back to thrid at approx the same time the other runner was approching 3rd, we had two guys sliding into third at about the same time.
Last edited by cccsdad
I really could not make a ruling on this because i was not there, but I would have most likely given a delayed dead ball signal, and let things play out. Afterwards, I would set the runner that had been called out to the dugout with an out recorded for the offensive team, and put the runner that came from 1st, back to second base with understanding that the player would have never reached 3rd had there not been confusion on the field. I could be wrong on this one but it seems like the right call.

Add Reply

Post
.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×