Hesitation = Obstruction/Interference?

[Spoonerstreet]

Had one of those situations that would only happen in younger leagues.

 

1 out, runner on 3rd.

Batter hits a soft fly to F3 in foul territory (just outside the 1b line).

F3 catches it, and in a fashion that could only happen with 3rd graders, R3 tags and heads home.

 

The batter, who essentially only made it out of the batters box, walks back to his dugout on the 3b side, right in front of the plate.

F3 starts to throw home to get the runner, but hesitates because he didn't want to hit the batter with the ball.  His throw is late and the run scores.  There was never any contact made.  The batter didn't even know what was going on.

 

Should I have called obstruction on the batter and called the runner out?

Does there have to be contact or deliberate action for it to be called?

 

Kind of got stuck between interpretation and what rules apply.  Any help on how this should have been correctly called?

[johnnyg08]

How do you know what F3 was thinking?  

 

You can't have obstruction on the offense.  

 

Offense "interferes"

 

Defense "obstructs"

 

To me, it sounds like nothing.  

[Spoonerstreet]

I can't be 100%, but you could tell that the reason he didn't throw the ball was because it would have hit the batter crossing in front....probably in the face or chest. He wound up to throw, but stopped short.  He threw once the batter cleared the space, just a hair too late to get the runner.

 

It was a weird situation...even the third base coach was taken aback by the kid tagging and trying to score.

[johnnyg08]

I can't be 100%, but you could tell that the reason he didn't throw the ball was because it would have hit the batter crossing in front....probably in the face or chest. He wound up to throw, but stopped short.  He threw once the batter cleared the space, just a hair too late to get the runner.

 

It was a weird situation...even the third base coach was taken aback by the kid tagging and trying to score.

 

 

The joys of youth baseball.  Still sounds like nothing to me. 

[tldavis19]

No there does not have to be contact nor does there have to be a throw to have intereference. Its umpire's judgement as to whether or not the batter interfered with the throw home.

[Rich Ives]

Interference with a throw has to be intentional.

 

Play on.

[maven]

One factor to consider: this is not runner INT, but retired runner INT, which has a lower bar. The runner has a job to do, but the retired runner needs to get the heck out of the way.

 

The retired runner hindered the defense. That's INT, and I'll take the out!

[Thunderheads]

Interference with a throw has to be intentional.

 

Play on.

What???

[grayhawk]

One factor to consider: this is not runner INT, but retired runner INT, which as a lower bar. The runner has a job to do, but the retired runner needs to get the heck out of the way.

 

The retired runner hindered the defense. That's INT, and I'll take the out!

 

This is correct.  Here's the relevant cite:

 

7.09 It is interference by a batter or 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;

[Aging_Arbiter]

 

One factor to consider: this is not runner INT, but retired runner INT, which as a lower bar. The runner has a job to do, but the retired runner needs to get the heck out of the way.

 

The retired runner hindered the defense. That's INT, and I'll take the out!

 

This is correct.  Here's the relevant cite:

 

7.09 It is interference by a batter or 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;

 

 But there was no throw.......hence no play.   Ball + runner = play.

[noumpere]

99 pct of the time this play as described is going to be nothing.

[Rich Ives]

 

Interference with a throw has to be intentional.

 

Play on.

What???

 

 

You don't know this?

 

 

7.08 Any runner is out when—

(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;

[Mike Prince]

 

 

Interference with a throw has to be intentional.

 

Play on.

What???

 

 

You don't know this?

 

 

7.08 Any runner is out when—

(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;

 

 

Grayhawk seems to have a more appropriate rule reference in post #9.

[Rich Ives]

 

One factor to consider: this is not runner INT, but retired runner INT, which as a lower bar. The runner has a job to do, but the retired runner needs to get the heck out of the way.

 

The retired runner hindered the defense. That's INT, and I'll take the out!

 

This is correct.  Here's the relevant cite:

 

7.09 It is interference by a batter or 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;

 

 

Not always true. May or may not be here, but not always.

 

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.

[Thunderheads]

 

Interference with a throw has to be intentional.

 

Play on.

What???

 

 

You don't know this?

 

 

7.08 Any runner is out when—

(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;

You always have to have some quip don't you?

Yes....I know what it reads....so you're saying a running lane violation is "intentional" ?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[Mike Prince]

From the OP it sounds like the retired runner interferes by the letter of the rule as he does not "continue to advance" but instead walks right through a potential play at the plate.  But as stated by others, the majority of the time this will not be called.

 

Seems like a good coach would appeal/ask for for the additional out.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

Interference with a throw has to be intentional.

 

Play on.

 

What???

 

 

 

You don't know this?

 

 

7.08 Any runner is out when—

(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;

You always have to have some quip don't you?

Yes....I know what it reads....so you're saying a running lane violation is "intentional" ?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

You do a big "What???" when I say interference with a throw has to be intentional and then zing me? 

 

A running lane violation is a separate rule. And it only applies to interfering with a fielder taking the throw at 1B. This could be getting hit with the throw OR something else like actually contacting the fielder. And it's only on a play at the base. A return throw or a throw to elsewhere doesn't enter into this rule at all.

 

This play has absolutely nothing to do with a running lane violation

[grayhawk]

 

 

One factor to consider: this is not runner INT, but retired runner INT, which as a lower bar. The runner has a job to do, but the retired runner needs to get the heck out of the way.

 

The retired runner hindered the defense. That's INT, and I'll take the out!

 

This is correct.  Here's the relevant cite:

 

7.09 It is interference by a batter or 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;

 

 But there was no throw.......hence no play.   Ball + runner = play.

 

 

Isn't there a definition of a "play" somewhere - MLBUM perhaps?  I'm not convinced that if a fielder was going to throw, only to abort so as not to drill an unsuspecting retired runner, that's this is not a "play" in 7.09(e).  We can have BI without a "play" as you describe it (ball + runner) but the rule talks about interfering with F2's "attempt" to put out a runner.

 

You could be right - I would just like to see a reference or authoritative opinion.  I don't have my WUM with me - maybe it's spelled out there?

[Thunderheads]

Rich.....come on ....you mean a 'what' with 3 question marks is a zing? If I would have done it in all CAPS then I would say yes , but regardless that wasn't my intention.

Thanks for the clarification.....when I saw your post I thought ' wait' and I took what you said as ANY play with a throw.....and that's why I brought up a running lane violation.

I know the plays are totally different but that's how I took your post. I was strictly thinking throw-interference-intentional , period.

So.... Basically what you said (7.08 b ) has a caveat ..... And that is unless you are discussing a running lane violation, right?

...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[Rich Ives]

Rich.....come on ....you mean a 'what' with 3 question marks is a zing? If I would have done it in all CAPS then I would say yes , but regardless that wasn't my intention.

Thanks for the clarification.....when I saw your post I thought ' wait' and I took what you said as ANY play with a throw.....and that's why I brought up a running lane violation.

I know the plays are totally different but that's how I took your post. I was strictly thinking throw-interference-intentional , period.

So.... Basically what you said (7.08 b ) has a caveat ..... And that is unless you are discussing a running lane violation, right?

...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

If you want to call a running lane violation a caveat then yes.

 

The real caveat is in 7.09(e) where just continuing to run after being put out is not to be considered interference.

 

The real double-speak rule is 3.15 where it says it doesn't apply to team personnel and then uses a base coach in the example play.

[Thunderheads]

Well not literally a caveat....moreso a contradiction created by a unique play and applicable rule for that play.......but you know what I meant ;-)

Nice! OBR .....clear and concise....LOL :-D

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

One factor to consider: this is not runner INT, but retired runner INT, which as a lower bar. The runner has a job to do, but the retired runner needs to get the heck out of the way.

 

The retired runner hindered the defense. That's INT, and I'll take the out!

 

This is correct.  Here's the relevant cite:

 

7.09 It is interference by a batter or 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;

 

 But there was no throw.......hence no play.   Ball + runner = play.

 

 

Isn't there a definition of a "play" somewhere - MLBUM perhaps?  I'm not convinced that if a fielder was going to throw, only to abort so as not to drill an unsuspecting retired runner, that's this is not a "play" in 7.09(e).  We can have BI without a "play" as you describe it (ball + runner) but the rule talks about interfering with F2's "attempt" to put out a runner.

 

You could be right - I would just like to see a reference or authoritative opinion.  I don't have my WUM with me - maybe it's spelled out there?

 

 

Separate interfering with the fielder from interfering with a thrown ball.

 

Interfering with the thrown ball itself has to be intentional.

 

Interfering with the ability to throw the ball or field the thrown ball may not need to be intentional. In this play the runner's presence did not prevent the fielder from throwing the ball. He elected to not throw the ball.

 

A play per the MLBUM:

 

A play or attempted play is interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. (The fact that the runner is not out is not relevant.) A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or an attempted play.

[maven]

Well, a lot of red herrings for one thread!

 

First, although continuing to run the bases in itself is not interference, that's neither what happened in the OP nor the whole story of that rule. This retired runner was returning to the dugout, not continuing to run the bases, and so the entire clause fails to apply to him. But, further, while he is not required to disappear, he is required to stay out of the way. Walking over the plate when a runner is trying to score is NOT staying out of the way.

 

Second, although it might be true that INT would rarely be called here, that's neither proves nor disproves that it's the correct call. Of course the OP has an HTBT element to it, but for me it suggests INT.

 

Third, although F3 failed to throw the ball, a throw (or a play) is neither necessary nor sufficient for INT here. The retired runner hindered the defense's opportunity to make a play. That by itself satisfies the definition if retired runner INT (though not, as I've said, INT by a runner with a thrown ball, which does indeed need to be intentional).

 

Without seeing the play I cannot say conclusively that the OP should be ruled INT, but that call certainly seems plausible to me under the circumstances. And none of these red herrings has persuaded me otherwise.

[johnnyg08]

 

 

One factor to consider: this is not runner INT, but retired runner INT, which as a lower bar. The runner has a job to do, but the retired runner needs to get the heck out of the way.

 

The retired runner hindered the defense. That's INT, and I'll take the out!

 

This is correct.  Here's the relevant cite:

 

7.09 It is interference by a batter or 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;

 

 

Not always true. May or may not be here, but not always.

 

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.

 

 

He's not continuing to advance.  He's going to the dugout, just the Segura was. 

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

One factor to consider: this is not runner INT, but retired runner INT, which as a lower bar. The runner has a job to do, but the retired runner needs to get the heck out of the way.

 

The retired runner hindered the defense. That's INT, and I'll take the out!

 

This is correct.  Here's the relevant cite:

 

7.09 It is interference by a batter or 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;

 

 

Not always true. May or may not be here, but not always.

 

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.

 

 

He's not continuing to advance.  He's going to the dugout, just the Segura was. 

 

 

Maven initially said he hindered the defense so it was interference.

 

All I was trying to say it that isn't always true so no one would think that hindering is always interference.

[maven]

Maven initially said he hindered the defense so it was interference.

 

All I was trying to say it that isn't always true so no one would think that hindering is always interference.

But you went about it backwards, as if the exception were the general rule.

The general rule is that hindering the defense is INT. The exception applies when ALL a retired runner does is continue to advance, but he is still liable for INT if he negligently fails to get out of the way.

Since in the OP the retired runner is NEITHER merely continuing to advance NOR staying out of the way, the exception does not apply to the OP. So it's quite misleading to bring it up in this context.