Jump to content
  • 0
fishnfed

interference??

Question

R3, 1-2 to the batter, no outs.  Dropped third strike, catcher clears outside and makes the throw to 1st for the out.  Batter runner turns around and trots back down the base path enroute to third base dugout, R3 begins to advance, BR is now blocking the throwing lane of F3 to F2.  FED rules.  What says the knowledge base?  Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

The retired runner would need to intentionally interfere with the throw or the fielders. Simply  returning to the bench is not sufficient for interference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
27 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Nothing, unless it's intentional

Unless the batters 1st name is Claire and last name is Voyant (see what I did there?), you can't just expect the batter to "disappear". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That's nothing.

And when it happens, I recommend signalling "safe" immediately and verbalizing, "That's nothing!" This gives the defense the opportunity to retrieve the poorly thrown ball and try to play on other runners (if any—there weren't in the OP).

We are sometimes lax when it comes to communicating our important no-calls, especially when one team thinks "nothing" should be "something."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

In FED interference by a retired runner with a thrown ball would have to be intentional to be called. In OBR if the ball was thrown and hit the retired batter - runner, now not running the bases, it would be interference, intentional or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 hours ago, Jimurray said:

In OBR if the ball was thrown and hit the retired batter - runner, now not running the bases, it would be interference, intentional or not.

The bar for retired runner INT is lower in both codes, but not low enough in OBR to warrant this ruling.

No rule requires retired runners to disappear, but they cannot intentionally interfere. That would include running "back to the dugout" via a path that they know will take them through play.

IOW, I'm willing to take some instances of "negligent" action as sufficient to count as "intentional" under the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, maven said:

The bar for retired runner INT is lower in both codes, but not low enough in OBR to warrant this ruling.

No rule requires retired runners to disappear, but they cannot intentionally interfere. That would include running "back to the dugout" via a path that they know will take them through play.

IOW, I'm willing to take some instances of "negligent" action as sufficient to count as "intentional" under the rule.

You don't need intent for a retired runner in OBR. They are protected by the rule that allows them to continue to run the bases normally. Wendelstedt has examples of retired runners being hit by a throw after starting for their dugout and being called out. You don't have to rationalize any intent on their part. Intent is required by a runner or retired runner still running the bases normally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
38 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

You don't need intent for a retired runner in OBR. They are protected by the rule that allows them to continue to run the bases normally. Wendelstedt has examples of retired runners being hit by a throw after starting for their dugout and being called out. You don't have to rationalize any intent on their part. Intent is required by a runner or retired runner still running the bases normally.

Returning to the dugout IS normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

thanks fellows.  I got nothing even if it appears he is in the way, just not on purpose.  Thanks for the Claire F. Cation...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 11/4/2017 at 8:08 AM, Jimurray said:

It's normal but subject to Intereference if hit by throw.

I'm with Jimurray 

6.01(a)(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 (see Rule 6.01(j)); 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
  • 0
1 hour ago, Stk004 said:

I'm with Jimurray 

6.01(a)(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 (see Rule 6.01(j)); 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.

The OP was FED. I think FED gives blanket immunity to runners and retired runners. They even define retired runners.

You would be correct in being with me in OBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×