Interference?

[mbrown2097]

R2, 0 outs.  BR hits ball to F3 who is playing up.  F3 charges the ground ball, retrieves it, and runs to 1st for the out.  F3 crosses 1st headed diagonally away from the mound and into foul territory by 2-3 steps.  F3 then wheels and attempts to throw home due to R2 attempting to score on play.  BR  crosses 1st base a few steps later than F3 and instead of running straight up the line and past F3, he veers slightly to foul territory (turns out.)  In doing so, he collides with F3 when he plants and wheels to throw.  This prevented the throw to home.  I called the interference "That's interference" and banged R2.  Did I handle this correctly?  Any circumstance where you don't have interference on this? (Bang bang collision at 1st?)

[JaxRolo]

I don't have a problem with the call

[Rich Ives]

Someone might want to teach F3 how to play 1B.

[noumpere]

Someone might want to teach F3 how to play 1B.

I think BR was trying to teach him that runners veer foul, fielders veer fair.

[Lala]

Someone might want to teach F3 how to play 1B.

If 1B was paying attention, he would know that there is another play and has no business running into foul territory. That being said, BR has got to let him make the play. Good call

[Jocko]

Someone might want to teach F3 how to play 1B.

If 1B was paying attention, he would know that there is another play and has no business running into foul territory. That being said, BR has got to let him make the play. Good callI'm seeing his momentum carrying him foul. In which case, he has every right to be able to make the throw. Now, if they'd collided in a train wreck both going for the bag, I wouldnt have INT. Just a train wreck. In my mind, I see it as a good call, as described in the OP.

[mbrown2097]

Not a train wreck on the bag.  Both players traveled a few steps past the bag a second or so apart.  F3 had planted, wheeled and attempted to throw.  The collision prevented the execution of the throw.  Wondering if I messed up though. Looks like by rule, the only way that I get the 2nd out is if I judge that the BR intended to break up the double play.  Else, I should have returned the runner to the last legally occupied. (3rd.)  I don't think that there was intent, only screw-up.

[Mad Mike]

What rule are you referring to?

[Jocko]

No books here, but it falls under the heading of retired runners

[grayhawk]

It's 7.09(e):  It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

 

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;

[mbrown2097]

Yep, e fits my situation better.  I was hung up on F.  Thanks!

 

7.09 (f)

If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes

with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious

intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner

out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his

[Rich Ives]

Yep, e fits my situation better.  I was hung up on F.  Thanks!

 

7.09 (f)

If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes

with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious

intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner

out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his

 

He wasn't fielding a batted ball. The fielding part was long over.

[Rich Ives]

 

It's 7.09(e):  It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

 

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;

 

 

You forgot part:

 

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.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

Someone might want to teach F3 how to play 1B.

If 1B was paying attention, he would know that there is another play and has no business running into foul territory. That being said, BR has got to let him make the play. Good call I'm seeing his momentum carrying him foul. In which case, he has every right to be able to make the throw. Now, if they'd collided in a train wreck both going for the bag, I wouldnt have INT. Just a train wreck. In my mind, I see it as a good call, as described in the OP.

 

 

Not a train wreck on the bag.  Both players traveled a few steps past the bag a second or so apart.  F3 had planted, wheeled and attempted to throw.  The collision prevented the execution of the throw.  Wondering if I messed up though. Looks like by rule, the only way that I get the 2nd out is if I judge that the BR intended to break up the double play.  Else, I should have returned the runner to the last legally occupied. (3rd.)  I don't think that there was intent, only screw-up.

 

F3 should have planted against the base, not run through it. It wasn't a banger. Both he and the runner had time to take several steps after the tag of the base. That's why I said someone should teach him how to play the position.

 

Sounds like a youth game where the runner veered because someone told him you have to to avoid being called out for turning left, coupled with an F3 that hasn't been taught how to play the position. In a more trained game the runner might veer to avoid an F3 who was playing it correctly. I'm really leaning to "it's F3's fault".

 

You can call the interference but then it would take a coaching clinic to explain how everyone screwed up to arrive at that result.

[grayhawk]

It's 7.09(e): It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

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;

You forgot part:

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.

I intentionally left it out because it's not relevant to the OP. That part refers to a runner that may appear to the defense as one that can still be played on. Examples would be running to first on a U3K when he's already out, or continuing to run to second on a caught fly ball. Running through first after being put out isn't what that rule refers to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rich Ives]

 

 

It's 7.09(e): It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

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;

You forgot part:

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.

 

I intentionally left it out because it's not relevant to the OP. That part refers to a runner that may appear to the defense as one that can still be played on. Examples would be running to first on a U3K when he's already out, or continuing to run to second on a caught fly ball. Running through first after being put out isn't what that rule refers to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Don't agree.  Classic example is on a 6-4-3 DP.  Everyone in the park knows R1 is out yet this still applies to him. If the throw to 1B hits him and all he was doing was running then it's a nothing.

[grayhawk]

It's 7.09(e): It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

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;

You forgot part:

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.

I intentionally left it out because it's not relevant to the OP. That part refers to a runner that may appear to the defense as one that can still be played on. Examples would be running to first on a U3K when he's already out, or continuing to run to second on a caught fly ball. Running through first after being put out isn't what that rule refers to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't agree. Classic example is on a 6-4-3 DP. Everyone in the park knows R1 is out yet this still applies to him. If the throw to 1B hits him and all he was doing was running then it's a nothing.

Depends on how close to second he is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

 

It's 7.09(e): It is interference by a batter or a runner when—

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;

You forgot part:

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.

 

I intentionally left it out because it's not relevant to the OP. That part refers to a runner that may appear to the defense as one that can still be played on. Examples would be running to first on a U3K when he's already out, or continuing to run to second on a caught fly ball. Running through first after being put out isn't what that rule refers to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Don't agree. Classic example is on a 6-4-3 DP. Everyone in the park knows R1 is out yet this still applies to him. If the throw to 1B hits him and all he was doing was running then it's a nothing.

 

Depends on how close to second he is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Nope.

[grayhawk]

Your position is absurd on this play. The retired BR ran into F3 who was making a play on another runner. It wasn't unavoidable contact, even if unintentional. You lose your protest 100 times out of 100.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rich Ives]

Your position is absurd on this play. The retired BR ran into F3 who was making a play on another runner. It wasn't unavoidable contact, even if unintentional. You lose your protest 100 times out of 100.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

I said I think it was F3's fault.   Just as we don't allow a fielder to hit a runner with a throw to get an out, we shouldn't allow a fielder to step into a runner's path to get an interference call.

 

F3 didn't need to be where he went to make a play at  home. In fact the time it took for the extra steps made the play at home more difficult. He played it incorrectly.  B-R veered away from the play and F3 still stepped into his path. Was the B-R supposed to vaporize? And you think this thought is absurd?

 

A coach has to consider this from both the offensive and defensive perspectives because it could happen from either perspective.  F3 screwed up. It's his fault.

[grayhawk]

Your position is absurd on this play. The retired BR ran into F3 who was making a play on another runner. It wasn't unavoidable contact, even if unintentional. You lose your protest 100 times out of 100.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said I think it was F3's fault. Just as we don't allow a fielder to hit a runner with a throw to get an out, we shouldn't allow a fielder to step into a runner's path to get an interference call.

F3 didn't need to be where he went to make a play at home. In fact the time it took for the extra steps made the play at home more difficult. He played it incorrectly. B-R veered away from the play and F3 still stepped into his path. Was the B-R supposed to vaporize? And you think this thought is absurd?

A coach has to consider this from both the offensive and defensive perspectives because it could happen from either perspective. F3 screwed up. It's his fault.

Yes, absurd. There is no rule requiring F3 to not cross the base. There IS, however, a rule requiring a retired runner to not run into a fielder making a play on another runner. All the BR had to do was run straight through. He didn't. Interference.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rich Ives]

 

 

Your position is absurd on this play. The retired BR ran into F3 who was making a play on another runner. It wasn't unavoidable contact, even if unintentional. You lose your protest 100 times out of 100.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said I think it was F3's fault. Just as we don't allow a fielder to hit a runner with a throw to get an out, we shouldn't allow a fielder to step into a runner's path to get an interference call.

F3 didn't need to be where he went to make a play at home. In fact the time it took for the extra steps made the play at home more difficult. He played it incorrectly. B-R veered away from the play and F3 still stepped into his path. Was the B-R supposed to vaporize? And you think this thought is absurd?

A coach has to consider this from both the offensive and defensive perspectives because it could happen from either perspective. F3 screwed up. It's his fault.

 

Yes, absurd. There is no rule requiring F3 to not cross the base. There IS, however, a rule requiring a retired runner to not run into a fielder making a play on another runner. All the BR had to do was run straight through. He didn't. Interference.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

And there's no rule requiring the runner to mind-read the fielder so he can avoid the fielder doing the stupid unexpected thing.

 

A2D I guess.

[mbrown2097]

Hey guys,

I'll weigh back in.  In my opinion, the runner could have easily ran straight up the baseline as F3 had already cleared.  Instead, he basically followed F3 deeper into foul territory and when F3 stopped, he collided with him.  Yes, F3 played it wrong. He had time to plant on the bag and throw home.  (He didn't)  If the runner had collided with F3 on the foul line, I probably have nothing, but he didn't.  He veered right and followed F3 for a couple of steps.