Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
MT73

Retired Runner Interference?

Recommended Posts

Actually happened in my sons 12U game:

Bases loaded no out.

Batter hits pop up, umpires call infield fly.

Fielder drops the ball and all runners take off.

Multible attempts to make outs but team cant make any.

Last runner scores because B/R--who is already out on IF -- gets in a rundown between first and second base.

Question--is this interference by the BR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably, but I'd be laughing too hard to call it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Batter probably thought he was not out because the ball was dropped. Apparently so did the defense. Common at that level.

 

Besides, just continuing to run after being put out isn't in and of itself interference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Besides, just continuing to run after being put out isn't in and of itself interference.

Right, but he wasn't just continuing to run he was "in a rundown between first and second base."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Besides, just continuing to run after being put out isn't in and of itself interference.

That's not what the rule says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

Right, but he wasn't just continuing to run he was "in a rundown between first and second base."

Defense's fault. They got confused but the rule says 

 

Rule 6.01(a )(5) Comment (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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Defense's fault. They got confused but the rule says 

 

Rule 6.01(a )(5) Comment (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.

So in your mind, when a retired runner retreats in a rundown, he is advancing, and so excused from INT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, maven said:

So in your mind, when a retired runner retreats in a rundown, he is advancing, and so excused from INT?

You are hanging your hat on the rule wording but I think Wendelstedt calls it "normal baserunning", which this might be as the Batter did not know he was out on the IF. If they no called Beltre who retreated out of confusion (I think) then they might no call this also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

You are hanging your hat on the rule wording but I think Wendelstedt calls it "normal baserunning", which this might be as the Batter did not know he was out on the IF. If they no called Beltre who retreated out of confusion (I think) then they might no call this also.

I am indeed relying on wording, as words constitute the rules. If Wendelstedt has a different interpretation of 'continues to advance', I'd like to see it. The clear meaning of "continuing" and "advancing" to my mind does not extend to "normal baserunning": it's about the BR who's out on the catch being allowed to round the bases without being liable for INT just for that.

As for Beltre, I don't presume to judge whether that play was ruled correctly. We do know, however, that intent to hinder is not required for ruling INT on a retired runner. Hindrance is sufficient for INT, regardless of intent — and that's a substantial difference from (not-yet-retired) runner INT with a thrown ball, which does require intent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, maven said:

I am indeed relying on wording, as words constitute the rules.

Except for the parts of the rule book where they don't.

Spirit of rule vs letter of rule.  Whether it is "advancing" or "running the bases", the same problem arises.  By stating that the act of a retired runner continuing to advance/run is not, by that act alone, interference, it becomes a situation for the umpire to now get into the head of the runner, to determine if they are running because they are trying to confuse the defense or are they running because they don't realize they're out, or in the case of a FP, are they advancing to the base because the umpire hasn't said "out" yet, and maybe the fielder came off the bag.

It's interesting how in some cases we expect the players to know the situation and act accordingly, like a botched IFF call, but in others we don't expect a player to know they're actually out, and act accordingly.  Like an IFF, or a dropped K with 1B occupied less than two out.   We forgive a batter who runs to first on the dropped third strike with first occupied, and when the catcher throws it into right field we let the play continue on and R1 advance to third or home....except when we don't.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maven said:

I am indeed relying on wording, as words constitute the rules. If Wendelstedt has a different interpretation of 'continues to advance', I'd like to see it. The clear meaning of "continuing" and "advancing" to my mind does not extend to "normal baserunning": it's about the BR who's out on the catch being allowed to round the bases without being liable for INT just for that.

As for Beltre, I don't presume to judge whether that play was ruled correctly. We do know, however, that intent to hinder is not required for ruling INT on a retired runner. Hindrance is sufficient for INT, regardless of intent — and that's a substantial difference from (not-yet-retired) runner INT with a thrown ball, which does require intent.

My recall is fuzzy but I believe Wendelstedt allows anything construed as normal baserunning to be allowed. Intent would be required, such as an intentional veer to be hit by a throw, to call INT. The BRD has a case where the retired, on a pop bunt, batter is hit with a throw to double off R1 while running to 1B in the lane. No INT. Running out of the lane, showing intent, INT. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:11 AM, MT73 said:

Actually happened in my sons 12U game:

Bases loaded no out.

Batter hits pop up, umpires call infield fly.

Fielder drops the ball and all runners take off.

Multible attempts to make outs but team cant make any.

Last runner scores because B/R--who is already out on IF -- gets in a rundown between first and second base.

Question--is this interference by the BR?

At the rug-rat level the umpire should be yelling IF - BATTER IS OUT BATTER IS OUT so the defense knows to simply ignore the BR.

For shaven players they should know better

Here is another example to prove my point

1 out R1 B1 K's but we have a DK3. The batter runs to first base and F2 makes a play and air balls the ball into RF. That's on the defense they should know with R1 and less then 2 outs the batter is out regardless if we had a DK3 or not.

Same situation here

Pete Booth

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×