1st time to see this

[VolUmp]

Hindering a thrown ball must be intentional. I'm too lazy at this point to find a rule reference, so take my statement FWIW.

 

Not sure how many times it can be copied and pasted:

 

OBR -- Out.

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;

[ricka56]

 

OBR 7.11 If a member of the team at bat (not a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play was being made is out.

 

How is he not hindering the fielding of a thrown ball if he is hit by it ?

 

Fed 3-2-3 ...nor shall the base coach or members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner. 

 

How is the space where he got hit, not an area needed to attempt to put out a runner?

 

Because he got hit with the ball. He never hindered a fielder nor was in an area the fielder needed. The fielder gets protection, not the throw.

 

What about RLI when B gets hit by the throw? Has B not hindered F3 gloving the throw...what is the difference with a throw to the plate WRT 7.09(e)?

 

 

Alright, I manned-up and looked at the FED casebook. I have the following:

5.1.1 situation G: B1 hits a ground ball to left field. F7 throws the ball to the infield, where it hits an umpire or base runner. Is the ball dead?

RULING: not unless it is ruled interference by the base runner. Such ruling would be made if the runner deliberately allowed the ball to hit him.

I cannot find a rule reference that differentiates a retired runner in this situation.

Fed CB 3.2.3 is more applicable. Rule 3-2-3 applies to base coaches and any member of the offense.

[Replacematt]

 

Hindering a thrown ball must be intentional. I'm too lazy at this point to find a rule reference, so take my statement FWIW.

 

Not sure how many times it can be copied and pasted:

 

OBR -- Out.

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;

 

 

I guess that any time a runner takes out a fielder at 2B, it's an automatic double play. 

 

Seriously, stop talking for a bit and start listening. There is more to the rules than the rule book. Interference by a retired runner has to be intentional.

 

 

OBR 7.11 If a member of the team at bat (not a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play was being made is out.

 

How is he not hindering the fielding of a thrown ball if he is hit by it ?

 

Fed 3-2-3 ...nor shall the base coach or members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner. 

 

How is the space where he got hit, not an area needed to attempt to put out a runner?

 

Because he got hit with the ball. He never hindered a fielder nor was in an area the fielder needed. The fielder gets protection, not the throw.

 

What about RLI when B gets hit by the throw? Has B not hindered F3 gloving the throw...what is the difference with a throw to the plate WRT 7.09(e)?

 

 

Please tell me you're joking. There's a specific rule for RLI. 

[Replacematt]

Consider this related scenario.  How would you rule?

 

Bases loaded.  Two outs.  Ground ball to F6, who decides to throw to F3 to force out the BR.  The ball is overthrown, but does not go out of play.  R3 scores, then starts jumping up and down 15 feet to the 1B side of the plate, encouraging R2 to score.  F3 recovers the overthrow and throws to F2.  R3 does not see the throw coming, and F2 is screened on the throw, by the jumping R3.  The thrown ball sails past F2 without his seeing it. And, so R2 scores (ending the game, by the way.)

 

Your ruling?  Is it nothing, and R2 scores, since R3 did not intentionally interfere with the thrown ball?  Or, is it interference by a teammate since R3 already scored and is now just a teammate at the wrong place at the wrong time, and he screened F2?

 

If it's thought this should be a separate thread, I would be glad to resubmit it.  But I think it's a related question to the OP.

 

It's nothing if not intentional.

[ricka56]

 

 

Because he got hit with the ball. He never hindered a fielder nor was in an area the fielder needed. The fielder gets protection, not the throw.

 

What about RLI when B gets hit by the throw? Has B not hindered F3 gloving the throw...what is the difference with a throw to the plate WRT 7.09(e)?

 

Please tell me you're joking. There's a specific rule for RLI. 

 

And there is a specific rule for retired runners 7.09(e). For active base runners, it has to be intentional, not so for the retired runner (or any member of the offense OBR 7.11).  

 

In the Fed CB 3.2.3, it clearly says that 3BC (or any other member of the offense...my assertion)  accidentally hit by a throw in fair territory is interference Fed 3-2-3.   OBR 7.09(e) = Fed 3-2-3.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

 

hit, not an area needed to attempt to put out a runner?

 

Because he got hit with the ball. He never hindered a fielder nor was in an area the fielder needed. The fielder gets protection, not the throw.

 

What about RLI when B gets hit by the throw? Has B not hindered F3 gloving the throw...what is the difference with a throw to the plate WRT 7.09(e)?

 

Please tell me you're joking. There's a specific rule for RLI. 

 

And there is a specific rule for retired runners 7.09(e).

 

 

And what constitutes interference under that? 

[ricka56]

Because he got hit with the ball. He never hindered a fielder nor was in an area the fielder needed. The fielder gets protection, not the throw.

 

Lets take a look at the intentional interference case. R1 is halfway to 2B when he is forced out and intentionally gets in the way of the throw to 1B. With your line of thinking this would not be interference because (though his act was intentional) he didn't hinder/impede any protected players...he only impeded the throw (which, you claim is not protected).

 

Given your previous statement, is this play is interfernce?  If so, why?    

[Replacematt]

 

Because he got hit with the ball. He never hindered a fielder nor was in an area the fielder needed. The fielder gets protection, not the throw.

 

Lets take a look at the intentional interference case. R1 is halfway to 2B when he is forced out and intentionally gets in the way of the throw to 1B. With your line of thinking this would not be interference because (though his act was intentional) he didn't hinder/impede any protected players...he only impeded the throw (which, you claim is not protected).

 

Given your previous statement, is this play is interfernce?  If so, why?    

 

 

That's not 7.09e. My claim that there is no protection from a throw was in direct response to a comment about 7.11. If you paid attention to what I have said repeatedly, you would know that intentional interference with a throw is illegal.

[ricka56]

Forget about 7.11. In my post #14, I said that 7.09(e) works and is specifically applicable to the OP.

 

In the definition of interference it says that a member of the offense that impedes/hinders any fielder (the fielder is protected) is guilty of interference. But that's not the whole story for interference. RLI and intentional interference protects the throw as well as the runner. So there is presidence for the throw being protected. 7.09(e) doesn't specify that the player is protected, nor the throw. 7.09(e) protects the play. F2 is trying to make a play on a runner. The retired runner impeded that play.

[bam]

 

Hindering a thrown ball must be intentional. I'm too lazy at this point to find a rule reference, so take my statement FWIW.

 

Not sure how many times it can be copied and pasted:

 

OBR -- Out.

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're going to have to keep doing CTRL+C because I'm not buying it. Interference with a thrown ball has to be intentional.  

 

How about this:

 

B1 strikes out and turns to his dugout on 3rd base side.  Catcher sees R2 trying for third and drills retired batter in back of the head.  What's that?  @Rickvee may have MC, buts that's another thread.  

[Replacematt]

Forget about 7.11. In my post #14, I said that 7.09(e) works and is specifically applicable to the OP.

In the definition of interference it says that a member of the offense that impedes/hinders any fielder (the fielder is protected) is guilty of interference. But that's not the whole story for interference. RLI and intentional interference protects the throw as well as the runner. So there is presidence for the throw being protected. 7.09(e) doesn't specify that the player is protected, nor the throw. 7.09(e) protects the play. F2 is trying to make a play on a runner. The retired runner impeded that play.

So, again, every time a fielder is taken out at 2B, it's interference?

[VolUmp]

 

 

And there is a specific rule for retired runners 7.09(e). For active base runners, it has to be intentional, not so for the retired runner (or any member of the offense OBR 7.11).  

 

In the Fed CB 3.2.3, it clearly says that 3BC (or any other member of the offense...my assertion)  accidentally hit by a throw in fair territory is interference Fed 3-2-3.   OBR 7.09(e) = Fed 3-2-3.

 

 

THIS. 

OP is all about a retired runner.  INT.  Call it.

Use rulebooks, casebaooks and ... (wait for it ) common sense.

[maven]

In the Fed CB 3.2.3, it clearly says that 3BC (or any other member of the offense...my assertion)  accidentally hit by a throw in fair territory is interference Fed 3-2-3.   OBR 7.09(e) = Fed 3-2-3.

I would not extend that ruling to any member of the offense. The coach may be on the field, but has no business in fair territory. That's why it is interference if he is hit there.

 

A retired runner may be in fair territory, so that "automatic interference" thingy (what is that?) would not apply. Moreover, from the OP it sounds as if the retired BR was trying to stay out of fair territory, in order to avoid interfering.

 

OBR 7.11 requires vacating space needed by a fielder. It's about staying out of a fielder's way. Don't read the second or third sentences in isolation from the first. If you're 50 feet from a fielder, this provision is not going to apply.

 

The only way I'm calling INT here is if the retired runner does something intentionally to interfere: if he deliberately fails to get out of the way, for example. And it's going to have to be pretty obvious.

 

The throw from RF to the plate should be going to the cutoff, well in fair territory. If it hits the retired BR in foul territory, I'm not bailing out the defense's lack of throwing skills with a bogus INT call.

[BillKen]

That's interference and we have 3 outs.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

And there is a specific rule for retired runners 7.09(e). For active base runners, it has to be intentional, not so for the retired runner (or any member of the offense OBR 7.11).  

 

In the Fed CB 3.2.3, it clearly says that 3BC (or any other member of the offense...my assertion)  accidentally hit by a throw in fair territory is interference Fed 3-2-3.   OBR 7.09(e) = Fed 3-2-3.

 

 

THIS. 

OP is all about a retired runner.  INT.  Call it.

Use rulebooks, casebaooks and ... (wait for it ) common sense.

 

 

THIS. Is irrelevant. He is not offensive personnel.

 

In FED, the casebook (already quoted in this thread.) specifically states that a retired runner unintentionally touching a throw is not interference. So, please, take your own advice. You want to use common sense? Don't make dumbass rulings that allow the defense to get runners out by throwing at their teammates.

[johnnyg08]

It's not an out unless it's intentional.  

[Umpire in Chief]

Agree with those who say it's nothing unless you have intent.

 

IMO being hit by a thrown ball from the outfield is going to require some intent...

 

Add to that being hit in the back like the OP states, I've got nothing. 

[grayhawk]

If the throw is true, and the dumbass gets in the way, then I'm getting the interference. If the throw is offline and the dumbass gets hit, then I have nothing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ricka56]

 

Forget about 7.11. In my post #14, I said that 7.09(e) works and is specifically applicable to the OP.

In the definition of interference it says that a member of the offense that impedes/hinders any fielder (the fielder is protected) is guilty of interference. But that's not the whole story for interference. RLI and intentional interference protects the throw as well as the runner. So there is presidence for the throw being protected. 7.09(e) doesn't specify that the player is protected, nor the throw. 7.09(e) protects the play. F2 is trying to make a play on a runner. The retired runner impeded that play.

So, again, every time a fielder is taken out at 2B, it's interference?

 

That's a red herring.  Every time a fielder is taken out at 2B by a runner only when he interfers with his play...yes that's interference every time

 

In rules 7.08/09, the word "intentional" is used 8 times, but it is not used in 7.09(e) once. You can't use 7.08(b) "intentional" criteria (for baserunners) and apply it to 7.09(e) (for retired runners). There is no "intentional" criteria in 7.09(e). If there was supposed to be an "intentional" criteria in 7.09(e), there would be a ninth use of the word.

 

Importing criteria from one rule, to cover a different situation when there is a specific rule covering that situation is not allowed.

[BalkHawk]

This would be ruled the same way as in the 1978 world series. In that case it was the back half of a double play. Reggie Jackon (R1) had been put out at second on the force but the throw to 1st hit him in the hip. The Dogers wanted an intereference call arguing he had to get out of the way.   The umpires ruled that because there was no intenet, there was no interference.   

***(that's if you agree there was no intenet..video says otherwise, but that's history now..     *** 

In pretty sure there was no Internet in 1978. You'd have to ask Al Gore.

[Replacematt]

That's a red herring.  Every time a fielder is taken out at 2B by a runner only when he interfers with his play...yes that's interference every time

So, a runner sliding into second, contacting the fielder, and stopping his throw is always interference, huh?

 

In rules 7.08/09, the word "intentional" is used 8 times, but it is not used in 7.09(e) once. You can't use 7.08(b) "intentional" criteria (for baserunners) and apply it to 7.09(e) (for retired runners). There is no "intentional" criteria in 7.09(e). If there was supposed to be an "intentional" criteria in 7.09(e), there would be a ninth use of the word.

 

Importing criteria from one rule, to cover a different situation when there is a specific rule covering that situation is not allowed.

 

So, it's all right for you to extract principles from other rules, but I can't? (I'm not, BTW; interference is not just any act of hindrance or impediment.)

You also give too much credit to the writers. It has been well-established that there are contradictory uses of words and uses of contradictory words in the rulebook.

So, tell me, how do you prevent the defense from plunking retired runners simply to get outs?

[maven]

In pretty sure there was no Internet in 1978. You'd have to ask Al Gore.

There was, but Congressman Gore had no access to DARPAnet.

[ricka56]

 

That's a red herring.  Every time a fielder is taken out at 2B by a runner only when he interfers with his play...yes that's interference every time

So, a runner sliding into second, contacting the fielder, and stopping his throw is always interference, huh?

 

Now you're just being silly. I never said what you claim I said/inferred. All I said was that it is always interference when there is interference...profound, I know. I can't argue with silliness. 

 

So, it's all right for you to extract principles from other rules, but I can't?

 

What principles/criteria have I extracted from one rule to another...in this thread, that is. 

 

So, tell me, how do you prevent the defense from plunking retired runners simply to get outs?

 

The rule prohibits interferring with a play. Intentionally "plunking" a runner isn't a play...more silliness.

[Replacematt]

So, a runner sliding into second, contacting the fielder, and stopping his throw is always interference, huh?

 

Now you're just being silly. I never said what you claim I said/inferred.

Yes, you did. "Every time a fielder is taken out at 2B by a runner only when he interfers with his play...yes that's interference every time"

 

What principles/criteria have I extracted from one rule to another...in this thread, that is.

 

"In the definition of interference it says that a member of the offense that impedes/hinders any fielder (the fielder is protected) is guilty of interference. But that's not the whole story for interference. RLI and intentional interference protects the throw as well as the runner. So there is presidence for the throw being protected. 7.09(e) doesn't specify that the player is protected, nor the throw. 7.09(e) protects the play."

There's you trying to add concepts from two irrelevant rules to this play.

 

The rule prohibits interferring with a play. Intentionally "plunking" a runner isn't a play...more silliness.

It is if it's an attempt to get an out.

[hill2933]

How is this different than a double play ball in the infield? R1 running to second gets retired but is still in fair terriory. Would you get an out everytime R1 touched the throw to first? I would think if this was the case every coach would be teaching middle infielders to throw at every runner.