Runners who are out

No don't explain it vaguely, teach em the rule: and ensure they know that they must vacate any space needed by the defense to field a batted or thrown ball.

Offense has four categories:
Batter: in the batters box awaiting a pitch.

Batter Runner: batter who's just hit, until he's retired or the play in which he became a runner has ended.

Runner: player on the base path/s who has not been retired or scored.

Offensive teammate: (coaches, subs, retired batters and or runners, basecoaches, on deck hitters and already scored runners)

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

7.11 The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.
PENALTY: Interference shall be called and the batter or runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out.

Thanks for the rule info.

This part is a little confusing, "interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes ..." Does the word "act" implicitly include the word "purposeful?" That changes the strategy a lot, it seems to me, if accidental interference is possible.

It seems to me that if the text is taken literally (I know that's not always the case) then an "offensive teammate" in the form of a forced out lead runner can get his team in as much trouble trying to leave the field with his back turned to the play, so you would tell your guys that if they are out on the front end of a play, then get up move off the bag, but stay on the field and keep an eye on the ball and the defense, and stay out of their way!

But if interference has to be purposeful, then you'd tell your guys to get up and head for the bench immediately and don't worry about what's happening behind their backs b/c they can't get called out for interfering if they don't know they are in a position to interfere.

quote:

But if interference has to be purposeful, then you'd tell your guys to get up and head for the bench immediately and don't worry about what's happening behind their backs b/c they can't get called out for interfering if they don't know they are in a position to interfere.

And sorry to say, some will agree with this.

I am of the camp that if you "must" do something and you don't, you did it on purpose.

a link to a similar discussion on this topic.

http://hsbaseballweb.com/eve/f...=316105224#316105224

quote:

Originally posted by rodk:
But if interference has to be purposeful,

As a universal statement, this is incorrect.

From what I'm seeing, there's a lot of discretion here for the umpire if it is not "universally" the case that an act by an offensive teammate has to be purposeful to constitute interference. If I gather it correctly, if the element of purpose is not always mandated, there will be times when interference can be called following an accident or just bad luck by an offensive teammate.

I recall seeing times when a throw from right field hits a runner going to third, his back obviously to the throw, and that's not called interference.

Today, my kid was going down to second base on a force play and got hit with the ball after a ricochet following an error by the second baseman, no call, and I presume that was correct.

Would there be any absolute reason why a lead runner, out after a force play, would be called for interference if he is running off the field and his back is to where any throws or fielders are coming from? Or would more info be needed or could this simply be a judgment call?

quote:

Originally posted by rodk:
From what I'm seeing, there's a lot of discretion here for the umpire if it is not "universally" the case that an act by an offensive teammate has to be purposeful to constitute interference. If I gather it correctly, if the element of purpose is not always mandated, there will be times when interference can be called following an accident or just bad luck by an offensive teammate.

What I was referring to was that not all types of interference require intent.

Batter's Interference and Runner's interference with a batted ball, for instance, do not require intent. Runner's interference with a thrown ball does require intent.

Keeping one's back to the play does not always guarantee there is no intent. Players can read a fielder and easily get in the way of a throw without seeing the ball.

Would there be any absolute reason why a lead runner, out after a force play, would be called for interference if he is running off the field and his back is to where any throws or fielders are coming from? Or would more info be needed or could this simply be a judgment call?

Sure:
Ex: R1, R2 0 outs. Runners going on the pitch.
GB to 3rd.
F5 to his right fields the ball right on the bag, drags his glove across the bag for the force of the sliding R2 (1 out).
F5's momentum carries him into foul territory a few steps, he plants, and sails a throw over F3's head into RF.
R1 rounding second digs for Home.
F9 backing up the play is charging hard for a throw to the plate.
As F9's throw and R1 are arriving at HP the retired R2 (heading for his 1B dugout), stops just outside the LH batters box and picks up the bat, the throw from F9 hits him in the leg and carooms to the back stop, R1 scores, BR coasts into 3rd.

Did R2 do anything purposeful? He was simply forced out, heading to his dugout and trying to play safe by picking up the bat, what a sport.

But, Yes he did do something purposeful, he failed/refused/ignored rule 7.11, vacate "any and all"....
Int. R1 out, BR to 2b.

quote:

.11 The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

I can't quibble on the correctness of jjk's result in this particular described situation.

But this is an interesting case and one in which there seems to be something of a subtext to the literal text, which apparently could be overanalyzed to death, so it might be simpler to say there really isn't any absolute textual rule, but that these kinds of situations are intended to be determined on a case-by-case evaluation by an umpire, similar to an infield fly or something from football or s****r where many of the rules involve judgment calls.

Here, if the retired batter crosses over from foul to fair to foul again and to the right field side of home plate, he obviously should know that the result of his act is that he could come into the line of a throw from the rightfielder on the trail runner -- and we know he is aware of the possibility b/c he is picking up the bat to prevent a slide injury to him -- so he can't rightly argue that he is truly innocent b/c he had his head in stuck in the sand, ie, the "ostrich defense," aka the Sgt Schultz defense (from "Hogan's Heroes" "I saw nothing! I did nothing.") This is just intentional indifference to the scenario, perhaps negligence in a legal sense, rather than "purposeful" behavior.

The distinction in my scenario is the retired runner is just getting out of the way of a play, and from where he is at the moment he decides what he is doing next, it almost seems equally possible that he will interfere by moving as by staying. The upshot is that he has a much more compelling a version of the ostrich defense than the other guy, it is just a bad luck if he interferes with a throw because he can't say to himself when he does it that he is causing a distinct probability of interfering. The "purposeful" act of getting off the field isn't really indifference to the situation, and it isn't really negligence if he gets hit, just an accident, as the runner here was being as careful as he could be, just could not avoid the result because he doesn't have 360 degree vision.

I'm thinking that jjk is describing a trichotomy of "purposeful," "negligent" and "inadvertent" with the first two being sanctionable rather than the currently seen dichotomy of "intentional" and "unintentional" "acts."

If I'm right -- and please let me get a sense if you think I am -- then that would be the way to explain it to ballplayers and that is how they should respond to these types of situations.

Thanks.