Rule on This Situation Please

[Umpete]

I am TD for our 10U District Cal Ripken tournament. Had this happen last night and would like opinions.

Bases loaded, 2 outs, batter drives clean single to LF. R3 scores easily, R2 races home as throw from left field is wide of the plate and gets past F2. F2 chases ball down, wheels and throws to F1 covering home attempting to retire R1 trying to score, BUT..... the just scored R2 is headed back to the dugout and is between F2 and F1 when the throw strikes him in the helmet. What, if anything, do you have?

[JaxRolo]

I would say INT. R1 Out. Other runs score.

[1dumbquestion]

I would say no INT., I know that R1 CAN int. but in this case I would not award the D for a bad throw by F8. I may be wrong and am willing look at other views but I think I would sell my 'that's nothing" and play on. Will be awaiting others input. 1

[LMSANS]

I would say no INT., I know that R1 CAN int. but in this case I would not award the D for a bad throw by F8. I may be wrong and am willing look at other views but I think I would sell my 'that's nothing" and play on. Will be awaiting others input. 1

I think the INT occurs on the throw by F2, not F8's bad throw.

[MPLSMatt]

HTBT - if R2 scored and is simply walking back to the dugout and is hit by a blind throw, it's hard to call INT - where's he supposed to go. If he's high fiving or doing a little dance, I might hit him with INT.

On a side note, you said you are TD - that doesn't mean this is a protest, does it? If so, let the umps ruling stand as this is a judgment call and protests cannot overturn judgment calls (unless the umpire said something that shows that he doesn't know or understand the rule).

[Mr Umpire]

A lot of it falls on timing of events. Also, was there a possible play?

[1dumbquestion]

I would say no INT., I know that R1 CAN int. but in this case I would not award the D for a bad throw by F8. I may be wrong and am willing look at other views but I think I would sell my 'that's nothing" and play on. Will be awaiting others input. 1

I think the INT occurs on the throw by F2, not F8's bad throw.

agreed, but had F8's throw been on than F2 wouldn't have made a throw and R2 would not have "int." 1

[sdix00]

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

(d) Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to

which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the

fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or

teammates;

(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;

(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally

interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a

batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire

shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not

declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the

umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball;

HOWEVER, the evolution of 7.09(e) started with the play where R1 takes out the pivot man to prevent a double play. A play in which intent is obvious.

Other rules, which penalize Offensive INT (7.09(d),(j)), are limited to plays in which there is intent.

Even though it is not EXPLICITLY evident, the intent of the writers is clear. FIELDERS bear the primary responsibility for THROWN balls.

I am going to need SOMETHING to indicate intent before I rule INT on this Former Runner

[yawetag]

Would there have been a reasonable play on R1 if R2 hadn't been in the way of the throw? If so, I've got INT.

[grayhawk]

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

(d) Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to

which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the

fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or

teammates;

(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;

(j) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally

interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a

batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire

shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not

declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the

umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball;

HOWEVER, the evolution of 7.09(e) started with the play where R1 takes out the pivot man to prevent a double play. A play in which intent is obvious.

Other rules, which penalize Offensive INT (7.09(d),(j)), are limited to plays in which there is intent.

Even though it is not EXPLICITLY evident, the intent of the writers is clear. FIELDERS bear the primary responsibility for THROWN balls.

I am going to need SOMETHING to indicate intent before I rule INT on this Former Runner

It seems pretty clear that intent is not required for a runner who just scored according to 7.09(e). However, if R2 was just doing what he was supposed to do, then I have nothing - he can't disappear. If he was oblivious and could have gotten out of the way, then I have INT and R1 is out.

[JaxRolo]

I would say no INT., I know that R1 CAN int. but in this case I would not award the D for a bad throw by F8. I may be wrong and am willing look at other views but I think I would sell my 'that's nothing" and play on. Will be awaiting others input. 1

Can't award the offense for R2 getting in the way if there was a possible play.

[sdix00]

Besides no intent. -

My problem is penalizing the offense for what they are supposed to be doing, while rewarding the defense for a bad throw past F2.

[JaxRolo]

Runners should know to stay out of the way. Trying to get to the dugout is not enough.

[Dragon29]

My problem is penalizing the offense for what they are supposed to be doing, while rewarding the defense for a bad throw past F2.

You've used that phrase a number of times.

"Doing what they are supposed to be doing."

Correct. What that scored runner is supposed to be doing is staying the hell out of he way of live action. HTBT to be certain, but from the description, I've got INT.

Also, as has been pointed out, you're not rewarding the defense for a bad throw. They've already been penalized for that by the playing action. A good throw would have stopped R1 at 3B. Besides, you can't use that logic or you have to go back to, "Well, if the batter hadn't hit the ball, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place" Stick to the play at hand, not what led up to it.

[mstaylor]

Interference on a thrown ball has to be intentional. Other teammates are required to clear whatever area is needed to make a play. Offensive indifference is considered to be intentional by interp. So the throw goes by the catcher, R1 tries to score and the throw goes to the plate and R2 is oblivious to the play going on, that's interference.

[BigBird]

Offensive indifference is not always considered as intentional (how many times does an offensively indifferent R1 get plunked in the back when F3 throws to second trying for the out.) and should not be treated as such (and any documented interp that says otherwise, needs to find file 13). You have a whole series of things to think about before you can rule properly.

1. Did the runner show intent to interfere.. if yes, out.. no more thinking needed... If not, continue

2. Was the runner doing as they were supposed to? This one is a bit more detailed, but if the runner is in the act of crossing home plate, you have nothing.. if the runner is just standing there, you may have something. If the runner has crossed but is in the act of stopping his/her momentum, you probably have nothing.

3. When the runner started for the dugout, was the ball still rattling about the backstop? Anotherwards, did the runner have any idea where a possible throwing lane may occur. If the answer to this is yes, the offensive indeference comes into play, where the ex-runner should have paid attention... if the answer is no, the catcher had to stop the ball, the runner was trying to guess. I would not call this one as the runner is trying to get in the clear.

4. Was there intent on F2 to hit the runner with the ball? If yes, you have nothing (and the players will think of and try this when you least expect it, trying to entice an INT call.)

In short, there is no short answer here. It is pure judgement on the calling umpires part as to how to rule. As a TD, I would not touch this one as a judgement call that cannot be protested.

[Umpete]

Just FYI, the INT was called and protest not allowed. Thanks to everyone for the insight.

[mstaylor]

Offensive indifference is not always considered as intentional (how many times does an offensively indifferent R1 get plunked in the back when F3 throws to second trying for the out.) and should not be treated as such (and any documented interp that says otherwise, needs to find file 13). You have a whole series of things to think about before you can rule properly.

If the batter was in the box and still then certainly he wouldn't get a BI, but if he steps out in front of the catcher, intentionally or not, then certainly it's BI. Are you saying he can step out in front of the catcher on a throw to second and you think it is part of his swing you don't call it? If so then that is wrong. If I am misunderstanding you then I am sorry.

[Thunderheads]

WAIT ..... hold on a minute ...

First, ... Warren, ...I'd like an emoticon that's a 'smiley' holding up a stop sign, with his hand!!

Second ...

If R2 scored already and is going to the dugout when the throw hits his helmet ....is he still a 'runner' under rule ????

[grayhawk]

WAIT ..... hold on a minute ...

First, ... Warren, ...I'd like an emoticon that's a 'smiley' holding up a stop sign, with his hand!!

Second ...

If R2 scored already and is going to the dugout when the throw hits his helmet ....is he still a 'runner' under rule ????

Let's review 7.09(e) again:

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;

Seems like INT to me, unless, in the judgement of the umpire, he was trying to vacate the area and was doing what he was supposed to do.

[Austex]

For thunderheads,

So I don't know how to add the smiley to the list of options but there you go .

[persong]

If he sees the play and can react does that make a difference? Headed to 1st base dugout straight from home? Headed across the back of the plate to 3rd base dugout? So many things involved to make it hard to determine. As I read it here I would have the INT. What if the runner that just scored is waiting to signal to the runner coming home which way to slide? Does where the throw goes have a part in the call? Obviously if it is not even close to the plate then you would not have INT.

[mstaylor]

If he is looking for the ball and tries to avoid but is unsuccessful then it's nothing. If he pays no attention to the play and moves past the plate then it's likely interference.