Batter-runner interference

[jjskitours]

R3, 1 out. Batter hits hard ground ball to F4 who throws out B-R at 1st. F3 turns and fires home to get R3, but throw hits B-R who is standing in the base line. It would have been a close play at the plate. Is this interference by a retired runner under 7.09(e) or is there room for umpire's judgement.

[Rich Ives]

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 if all the B-R did was continue to run then it is not interference. He would need to do something else to get called for it.

[baseballfan]

I totally agree with the statement above... but if ALL he's doing is standing there not moving in any particular direction, I might be more inclined to call interference. 

[BretMan]

Absent some obvious act to interfere with the thown ball, I think that the probability of this being interference is pretty close to zero.

 

You have a batter-runner legally advancing to first base on this play. When F3 decides to throw home, where else would you expect the batter-runner to be besides "in the baseline"? It's an old saw, but it applies here: We can't expect a retired runner to go *poof* and disappear the instant he is retired!

 

The fact that the batter-runner was just standing in one spot might open up the slim possibility of interference (but I'm having a hard time picturing it that way). How much time would you say elapsed from the instant that F3 caught the ball, to the time he threw home? If it was like a "pivot" catch/turn/throw, that means the B/R would have maybe about one second to react.

 

Was he running and then stopped about the same time that he was being put out? There's no rule that requires him to veer off any certain direction. He was in the baseline to begin with and it's a reasonable expectation that he would still be in the baseline a second or two after being put out.

 

Or, did he stop way before he was actually put out, long enough that it might make you, the umpire, judge that he had abandoned his effort to advance and was instead purposely trying to position himself in the path of any impending throw. I think that's about the only way you could justify an interference call here. But it's a matter of timing. Most of the time, a batter-runner who is trying to reach first base will be moving toward first base, not just standing in one spot waiting to be put out.

[rabbit]

Absent some obvious act to interfere with the thown ball, I think that the probability of this being interference is pretty close to zero.

 

You have a batter-runner legally advancing to first base on this play. When F3 decides to throw home, where else would you expect the batter-runner to be besides "in the baseline"? It's an old saw, but it applies here: We can't expect a retired runner to go *poof* and disappear the instant he is retired!

 

The fact that the batter-runner was just standing in one spot might open up the slim possibility of interference (but I'm having a hard time picturing it that way). How much time would you say elapsed from the instant that F3 caught the ball, to the time he threw home? If it was like a "pivot" catch/turn/throw, that means the B/R would have maybe about one second to react.

 

Was he running and then stopped about the same time that he was being put out? There's no rule that requires him to veer off any certain direction. He was in the baseline to begin with and it's a reasonable expectation that he would still be in the baseline a second or two after being put out.

 

Or, did he stop way before he was actually put out, long enough that it might make you, the umpire, judge that he had abandoned his effort to advance and was instead purposely trying to position himself in the path of any impending throw. I think that's about the only way you could justify an interference call here. But it's a matter of timing. Most of the time, a batter-runner who is trying to reach first base will be moving toward first base, not just standing in one spot waiting to be put out.

excellent explanation Brettman

[JaxRolo]

If he is just standing in the baseline I would lean towards calling INT

[noumpere]

If he is just standing in the baseline, I would lean toward NOT calling INT

[BigUmp56]

It's pretty simple to me. A batter-runner has to INTENTIONALLY interfere with a thrown ball to be called for interference. This is a judgment call that could go either way (most likely not INT), but it's up to the calling umpire. I go back to an old Bob Pariseau explanation about runner's INT with a thrown ball. If intent wasn't required to have INT, the fielders would simply target the runners.

 

Tim