Jump to content

Interference by B/R?


refump10
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3621 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

 

 

To those who are saying that a retired B/R can't be out for a RLV, the 2014 BRD has case plays and interp that specifically state the RETIRED B/R is out for interference when he's not in the Running Lane.  Page 215, case 348.

 

If I need to quote the case plays, just let me know.......but I think Grayhawk's quote should suffice that this "retired B/R can't be called for RLV" is a myth.

 

If the BRD had authority, you'd be right. There are those of us (me included, as shown above) who don't hold the BRD as anything other than another opinion.

 

 

 

 

Are we in agreement that FED RB 8-4-2g is the application to this play? If, a retired runner interferes and, in the umpire's judgment, prevents a possible double play, then the umpire shall declare that runner out?

It's 8-4-2h

 

I only have the 2013 NFHS bookn me, was there an added letter for 2014 because I have 8-4-2g. You must read the rule in its entirety to get to the "retired runner" part.

@Matt, in FED, there should be no debate that this is INT by definition.

With the "in the umpire's judgment" part, is it possible to have retired runner INT, immediate dead ball, but NO other out awarded if a DP was not possible?

 

 

Wow. You're reading the exact rule and still getting the wrong result.

 

8-4-2g specifically says interference with a throw must be intentional. 8-4-2f is the first clause of that rule where it shows that it applies to retired and unretired runners. 5-1-1 shows that 8-4-2g is applicable to retired runners.

 

 

There is a part of 8-4-2g that applies to retired runners - just not the part about interfering with a throw needing to be intentional.

 

8-4-2:  Any runner is out when he:

 

g.  intentionally interferes with a throw or thrown ball...(there a bunch of stuff after this that has nothing to do with intent).

 

It then goes on to define what happens when a retired runner interferes later in the paragraph.  Nothing about it needing to be intentional with respect to a retired runner.

 

 

Read f then g. It's very clear that g is a continuation of f.

 

 

Retired runners can't intentionally interfere with a thrown ball - nobody is disputing that.  But that doesn't require all interference by a retired runner to be intentional.  You have to read the whole rule.  This stance is also supported by 8-4-1h which puts out the BR when a retired runner "interferes in a way which obviously hinders an obvious double play"  Notice the absence of intent from that rule as well.

 

 

Please do read the entire rule-actually, all of them. Interference has to be illegal. 8-4-1h is a punitive article which does not define interference. That comes about elsewhere. 

 

Interference with a thrown ball must be intentional if done by a runner or retired runner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we in agreement that FED RB 8-4-2g is the application to this play? If, a retired runner interferes and, in the umpire's judgment, prevents a possible double play, then the umpire shall declare that runner out?
It's 8-4-2h

I only have the 2013 NFHS bookn me, was there an added letter for 2014 because I have 8-4-2g. You must read the rule in its entirety to get to the "retired runner" part.

@Matt, in FED, there should be no debate that this is INT by definition.

With the "in the umpire's judgment" part, is it possible to have retired runner INT, immediate dead ball, but NO other out awarded if a DP was not possible?

Wow. You're reading the exact rule and still getting the wrong result.

8-4-2g specifically says interference with a throw must be intentional. 8-4-2f is the first clause of that rule where it shows that it applies to retired and unretired runners. 5-1-1 shows that 8-4-2g is applicable to retired runners.

There is a part of 8-4-2g that applies to retired runners - just not the part about interfering with a throw needing to be intentional.

8-4-2: Any runner is out when he:

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or thrown ball...(there a bunch of stuff after this that has nothing to do with intent).

It then goes on to define what happens when a retired runner interferes later in the paragraph. Nothing about it needing to be intentional with respect to a retired runner.

it also includes if the runner or batter-runner INT with a possible double play in ANY way, then 2 may be declared out. I don't agree that 8-4-2g is only intentional INT. There are multiple sentences included in that rule.

Everything after the first sentence in g clarifies situations arising from the first sentence in g. 8-4-2g is only intentional INT.

So the "if the runner including batter-runner interferes in ANY way to prevent a possibly double play..." is in there under 8-4-2g just for giggles? Any INT and intentional INT are not the same

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record Matt, I do see what you are saying. I wish that FED would clarify that in their definition of INT in rule 2.

Also, completely agree with BRD stuff. Good opinion source, but didn't think it was viewed as the end-all of sources

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are we in agreement that FED RB 8-4-2g is the application to this play? If, a retired runner interferes and, in the umpire's judgment, prevents a possible double play, then the umpire shall declare that runner out?

It's 8-4-2h

 

I only have the 2013 NFHS bookn me, was there an added letter for 2014 because I have 8-4-2g. You must read the rule in its entirety to get to the "retired runner" part.

@Matt, in FED, there should be no debate that this is INT by definition.

With the "in the umpire's judgment" part, is it possible to have retired runner INT, immediate dead ball, but NO other out awarded if a DP was not possible?

 

Wow. You're reading the exact rule and still getting the wrong result.

8-4-2g specifically says interference with a throw must be intentional. 8-4-2f is the first clause of that rule where it shows that it applies to retired and unretired runners. 5-1-1 shows that 8-4-2g is applicable to retired runners.

 

There is a part of 8-4-2g that applies to retired runners - just not the part about interfering with a throw needing to be intentional.

8-4-2: Any runner is out when he:

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or thrown ball...(there a bunch of stuff after this that has nothing to do with intent).

It then goes on to define what happens when a retired runner interferes later in the paragraph. Nothing about it needing to be intentional with respect to a retired runner.

 

it also includes if the runner or batter-runner INT with a possible double play in ANY way, then 2 may be declared out. I don't agree that 8-4-2g is only intentional INT. There are multiple sentences included in that rule.

 

Everything after the first sentence in g clarifies situations arising from the first sentence in g. 8-4-2g is only intentional INT.

 

So the "if the runner including batter-runner interferes in ANY way to prevent a possibly double play..." is in there under 8-4-2g just for giggles? Any INT and intentional INT are not the same

 

 

In a flippant sense, yes, it is. In a literal sense, it's simply a cut-and-paste from elsewhere that they didn't tailor to the clause.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "illegal action" is that the B/R (retired or not) is out of the running lane with a ball fielded and thrown from behind him.  

 

Edit:  I can't get the quote function to work for some reason, but this is in response to Matt's post #43 near the top.

 

That doesn't apply in FED.

 

I also don't necessarily buy it in OBR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are we in agreement that FED RB 8-4-2g is the application to this play? If, a retired runner interferes and, in the umpire's judgment, prevents a possible double play, then the umpire shall declare that runner out?

It's 8-4-2h

 

I only have the 2013 NFHS bookn me, was there an added letter for 2014 because I have 8-4-2g. You must read the rule in its entirety to get to the "retired runner" part.

@Matt, in FED, there should be no debate that this is INT by definition.

With the "in the umpire's judgment" part, is it possible to have retired runner INT, immediate dead ball, but NO other out awarded if a DP was not possible?

 

Wow. You're reading the exact rule and still getting the wrong result.

8-4-2g specifically says interference with a throw must be intentional. 8-4-2f is the first clause of that rule where it shows that it applies to retired and unretired runners. 5-1-1 shows that 8-4-2g is applicable to retired runners.

 

There is a part of 8-4-2g that applies to retired runners - just not the part about interfering with a throw needing to be intentional.

8-4-2: Any runner is out when he:

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or thrown ball...(there a bunch of stuff after this that has nothing to do with intent).

It then goes on to define what happens when a retired runner interferes later in the paragraph. Nothing about it needing to be intentional with respect to a retired runner.

 

it also includes if the runner or batter-runner INT with a possible double play in ANY way, then 2 may be declared out. I don't agree that 8-4-2g is only intentional INT. There are multiple sentences included in that rule.

 

 

Everything after the first sentence in g clarifies situations arising from the first sentence in g. 8-4-2g is only intentional INT.

 

How an you say this? The 1st sentence deals with a runner intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. The 2nd sentence in 8-4-2g deals with a runner hindering a protected fielder on a bated ball,

 

"...or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball."

 

 

This  obviously has nothing to do with a runner intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. And surely you're not inferring that if a runner accidently runs into a fielder trying to field a batted ball, he's not liable for INT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is still the first sentence, and it should be painfully obvious that it is not relevant to the discussion.

What's painfully obvious is 8-4-2g is NOT only about intentional INT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...