Jump to content

Interference by a retired runner


JoeC
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3121 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

Runner on 2nd with 1out. Batter hits it to right field and tries for 2nd base but gets tagged out. The runner on 2nd is trying to score. The retired batter runner gets up in front of the shortstop as he throws towards home and the throw hits the retired runner. What would you call?

I called the other runner out for the retired runner interfering with the throw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's supportable. Although merely continuing to run the bases is not by itself INT, the retired runner is obligated to clear any area needed by the defense to make a play. Since the BR failed to do so and hindered a play, INT is the correct call, and calling out the runner being played on is the proper penalty.

Good call.

Should the title refer to a "refried" runner? Frijoles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the rule require intent on a thrown ball for INT?

It does when it involves a runner. A retired runner has fewer privileges. 6.01(a)(5)/7.09(e): It is interference when: "(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does when it involves a runner. A retired runner has fewer privileges. 6.01(a)(5)/7.09(e): It is interference when: "(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate."

WUM requires intent on a retired runner that continues to run the bases normally. You might have intent in the OP

Edited by Jimurray
Added retired
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's supportable. Although merely continuing to run the bases is not by itself INT, the retired runner is obligated to clear any area needed by the defense to make a play. Since the BR failed to do so and hindered a play, INT is the correct call, and calling out the runner being played on is the proper penalty.

Good call.

Should the title refer to a "refried" runner? Frijoles?

Where do you find that a retired runner is obligated when running the bases?  WUM has a retired BR overrun 1B and get hit by a throw to get another runner. That's nothing, he was running the bases normally. If they are not running the bases normally they are obligated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "continuing to run the bases normally" situation is allowed when the stupid defense tries to make another play on the retired runner....that's on the defense. But I don't think this interference absolution is unlimited. If there is a play on another player, I believe that a retired runner is obliged to not interfer with the defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "continuing to run the bases normally" situation is allowed when the stupid defense tries to make another play on the retired runner....that's on the defense. But I don't think this interference absolution is unlimited. If there is a play on another player, I believe that a retired runner is obliged to not interfer with the defense.

There is some gray area in old rule 6 regarding a "preceding" runner but WUM has a retired runner from 1b who's out on a force legal when sliding directly to 2B and taking out the pivot man. Normal base running. If that runner deviates to take out the pivot man we have a DP. A retired runner in the baseline running the bases who does nothing intentional is protected by the WUM interp of the rule. A retired runner who is not in the baseline is not protected. Still a bunch of umpire judgement required.

So, wo has ponied up for a more current cite. You can cite OBR a number of ways. I'm quoting WUM from 2010. The TUS has their own book out and nobody has purchased it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some gray area in old rule 6 regarding a "preceding" runner but WUM has a retired runner from 1b who's out on a force legal when sliding directly to 2B and taking out the pivot man. Normal base running. If that runner deviates to take out the pivot man we have a DP. A retired runner in the baseline running the bases who does nothing intentional is protected by the WUM interp of the rule. A retired runner who is not in the baseline is not protected. Still a bunch of umpire judgement required.

So, wo has ponied up for a more current cite. You can cite OBR a number of ways. I'm quoting WUM from 2010. The TUS has their own book out and nobody has purchased it?

Yes, breaking up a DP by a just retired runner has been an exception to the retired runner interference rule for as long as I can remember. The way I read the OP, this limited exception to the rule does not apply here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does when it involves a runner. A retired runner has fewer privileges. 6.01(a)(5)/7.09(e): It is interference when: "(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate."

Thank you Maven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, breaking up a DP by a just retired runner has been an exception to the retired runner interference rule for as long as I can remember. The way I read the OP, this limited exception to the rule does not apply here. 

The exception to the retired runner rule is the comment allowing advance. A batter-runner put out on a ball to right field and hit by a throw while rounding 1B is not out unless it was intentional. A batter-runner who is out on a fly ball and has stopped running the bases and is in the infield grass heading to the dugout is out when hit by a thrown ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some gray area in old rule 6 regarding a "preceding" runner but WUM has a retired runner from 1b who's out on a force legal when sliding directly to 2B and taking out the pivot man. Normal base running. If that runner deviates to take out the pivot man we have a DP. A retired runner in the baseline running the bases who does nothing intentional is protected by the WUM interp of the rule. A retired runner who is not in the baseline is not protected. Still a bunch of umpire judgement required.

So, wo has ponied up for a more current cite. You can cite OBR a number of ways. I'm quoting WUM from 2010. The TUS has their own book out and nobody has purchased it?

I lean in the direction of Wendelstedt.  If the defense is playing on a retired runner and they screw up, I'm certainly not penalizing the offense unless there's an intentional act.  The rule is very clear that running the bases after being put out is not to be considered interference.  Same for NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored,
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.

7.11 The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (includ-
ing both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or
thrown ball. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt
to catch or field a batted ball, the ball is dead, the batter is declared out and all runners
return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If a member of the team at bat (other
than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner
on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last
legally occupied base at the time of the interference.

--------

I parse the comment differently from some people.  That says to me that the running of the bases per se is not interference.  E.g., if the batter-runner runs to first after an uncaught third strike, but with first base occupied and less than two out, that is not, in itself, interference.  However, if R1 is stealing second base on the U3K and F2's throw strikes the batter-runner, I would have interference even though the batter's actions could be described as "continues to advance".  Continuing to advance isn't a get out of jail free card.

 

Edited by basejester
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored,
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.

7.11 The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (includ-
ing both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or
thrown ball. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt
to catch or field a batted ball, the ball is dead, the batter is declared out and all runners
return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If a member of the team at bat (other
than a runner) hinders a fielder’s attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner
on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last
legally occupied base at the time of the interference.

--------

I parse the comment differently from some people.  That says to me that the running of the bases per se is not interference.  E.g., if the batter-runner runs to first after an uncaught third strike, but with first base occupied and less than two out, that is not, in itself, interference.  However, if R1 is stealing second base on the U3K and F2's throws strikes the batter-runner, I would have interference even though the batter's actions could be described as "continues to advance".  Continuing to advance isn't a get out of jail free card.

 

In your play the batter is another teammate and not a retired runner. 

From the BRD, R3, less than 2 out, batter hits foul fly and is running to 1B in the lane. Fly is caught and they throw to 3B to try to "double off" R3. Retired batter-runner is hit by throw. Ball stays live. A retired runner running the bases normally is not in jeopardy unless he does something intentionally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In jester's play, the BR struck out, the pitch was not legally caught, and with R1 the BR could not legally advance. He's thus a retired runner.

He legally completed his time at bat by being put out per old 6.05. He never became a runner as in any of the 6.08 or 6.09 cases. He is a retired batter and is not afforded the continue to advance exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He legally completed his time at bat by being put out per old 6.05. He never became a runner as in any of the 6.08 or 6.09 cases. He is a retired batter and is not afforded the continue to advance exception.

It does say batter or runner.  I suppose we could quibble over continues (vs. begin).   We certainly in practice allow retired batters to run to first base (which may be confusing) without calling interference.  This seems like a plausible citation for that call.

The point I was originally trying to make is that I believe it's possible for a runner to interfere when he continues to run the bases after being put out.  Running around is confusing, but not interference.  Deflecting a throw by running around could be interference.  At least, I think it could.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does say batter or runner.  I suppose we could quibble over continues (vs. begin).   We certainly in practice allow retired batters to run to first base (which may be confusing) without calling interference.  This seems like a plausible citation for that call.

The point I was originally trying to make is that I believe it's possible for a runner to interfere when he continues to run the bases after being put out.  Running around is confusing, but not interference.  Deflecting a throw by running around could be interference.  At least, I think it could.

 

 

 

It could if you deem it intentional as WUM requires. The OP doesn't specify  how the runner got in front of the SS. 

WUM has another play where R1 freezes on a line drive that is shorthopped to the SS who steps on 2B to retire R1 and throws to 1B for the DP but the throw hits retired R1, standing in the middle of the basepath. WUM has nothing because R1 was running the bases and the exception applies to him. He was not obligated to clear any area the defense needed to make a play.

Edited by Jimurray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it's exactly the same requirement for runners and retired runners?  It seems like there would have been a simpler way to write this rule.

 

Per WUM, once he's not normally running the bases the retired runner is not protected from unintentional interference. Once they are headed for the dugout they have to stay out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per WUM, once he's not normally running the bases the retired runner is not protected from unintentional interference. Once they are headed for the dugout they have to stay out of the way.

I would see this applying to a RH batter who strikes out on a stealing runner and begins his walk back to the 1B dugout crossing face w/ F2 who now has to double clutch because the retired batter crossed his face interfering w/ F2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would see this applying to a RH batter who strikes out on a stealing runner and begins his walk back to the 1B dugout crossing face w/ F2 who now has to double clutch because the retired batter crossed his face interfering w/ F2

Although this interp is directed at the FPSR, FED seems to allow a retired runner to continue normally in the basepath and not be guilty of INT unless intentinal:

" 2007

SITUATION 3: With no outs and R1 on first base, B2 hits a hard ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and steps on second base and then throws to first base in an attempt to double up B2. R1 is running standing up in a straight line to second and is hit by F6's throw. R1 was not even half way to second base and did not intentionally interfere with the throw. The defensive coach states that B2 should also be out since R1 violated the force-play slide rule. RULING: This is not a violation of the force play slide rule. R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path. The play stands. R1 would be out only if he intentionally interfered. (8-4-2b penalty)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although this interp is directed at the FPSR, FED seems to allow a retired runner to continue normally in the basepath and not be guilty of INT unless intentinal:

" 2007

SITUATION 3: With no outs and R1 on first base, B2 hits a hard ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and steps on second base and then throws to first base in an attempt to double up B2. R1 is running standing up in a straight line to second and is hit by F6's throw. R1 was not even half way to second base and did not intentionally interfere with the throw. The defensive coach states that B2 should also be out since R1 violated the force-play slide rule. RULING: This is not a violation of the force play slide rule. R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path. The play stands. R1 would be out only if he intentionally interfered. (8-4-2b penalty)"

Thereby inferring that if the runner is close enough to second base that he would be expected to slide but chooses not to, then going straight in standing up is an FPSR violation if he interferes or alters the play in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...