Interference?

[StrikeDavis]

I had a situation presented to me by a coach between games of a college summer league DH.  This happened to his team in their previous game.   

 

R1 nobody out.  Runner stealing on the pitch which gets popped up about 5-10 feet short of first base and about 10-15 feet into foul territory.  The popup is caught by F3 who attempts to retire a now retreating R1 by throwing to the pitcher covering 1B.  The throw by F3 from foul territory hits the batter-runner (who ran the ball out) about 2 steps before 1B.  If the throw was completed R1 would have been out by a few feet.  What do you have?

 

 

 

      

[maven]

That's nothing. Interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. A runner, including the BR, is not guilty of INT just for continuing to run the bases. 7.09(e) & (j)

[UMP45]

Players who can't throw!

[noumpere]

Please tell me that the college umpires got it right.

[StrikeDavis]

@maven:  I told him I would have nothing.  According to the coach, the plate umpire called interference on the batter-runner and called the runner out. The rational for that ruling was since the ball was clearly going to be foul he had no business being where he was.  He said the base umpire was talking to his F4 a few innings later during a pitching change and said he did not think there should be interference called on the play.

 

@noumpere:  The umpires in that game were not college certified.  I am not either.  The league is mainly D3 kids with a few JUCO and D2 kids mixed in.  The league does not require it since there are not enough college certified guys willing to umpire in the summer around here.  They should still get that ruling correct.

[ricka56]

Here we go again.

 

Rule 7.08b intentionally interfers with a thrown ball  does not apply. That rule is for runners. The OP was a retired runner and rule 7.09e applies. But that's not the whole story there is a 7.09e comment about runners who continue to advance.

 

If BR keeps running (even though he is out), and the defense, for some reason, thinks he hasn't yet been put out and makes a play on him, then he is not guilty of interference per 7.09(e) comments.  The comment says that this  "act alone" is not interference. But in the OP,  BR's act of continuing to run was NOT alone. Along with his continued running was his impedence of a following play being made on another runner. That's interference.

[maven]

If BR keeps running (even though he is out), and the defense, for some reason, thinks he hasn't yet been put out and makes a play on him, then he is not guilty of interference per 7.09(e) comments.  The comment says that this  "act alone" is not interference. But in the OP,  BR's act of continuing to run was NOT alone. Along with his continued running was his impedence of a following play being made on another runner. That's interference.

 

Right: that act alone is not sufficient for an INT call, so he must do some further act, beyond and distinct from merely continuing to run the bases.

 

The BR in the OP did not (as far as we know) do any such further act. The defense threw the ball and hit him. That is not INT because the BR did not do it. All he did was continue to run, which the rules specifically, explicitly, and in no uncertain terms permit him to do.

[ricka56]

 

If BR keeps running (even though he is out), and the defense, for some reason, thinks he hasn't yet been put out and makes a play on him, then he is not guilty of interference per 7.09(e) comments.  The comment says that this  "act alone" is not interference. But in the OP,  BR's act of continuing to run was NOT alone. Along with his continued running was his impedence of a following play being made on another runner. That's interference.

 

Right: that act alone is not sufficient for an INT call, so he must do some further act, beyond and distinct from merely continuing to run the bases.

 

The BR in the OP did not (as far as we know) do any such further act. The defense threw the ball and hit him. That is not INT because the BR did not do it. All he did was continue to run, which the rules specifically, explicitly, and in no uncertain terms permit him to do.

 

I disagree that 7.09e requires a further, seperate, or distinct act (thought those aren't excluded). Why isn't an accompanying act  a possible additional act. He continued to advance AND got in the way of a play being made on another runner. This isn't the generally accepted exception to 7.09e where the defense is dumb enough to make a play on an advancing (already out) runner.

 

IMO, 7.09e was put in the rules to prevent the offense from intentionally or unintentionally mucking up a following play. Giving this runner a pass because he didn't do anything intentional just isn't cricket.

[JHSump]

 

 

If BR keeps running (even though he is out), and the defense, for some reason, thinks he hasn't yet been put out and makes a play on him, then he is not guilty of interference per 7.09(e) comments.  The comment says that this  "act alone" is not interference. But in the OP,  BR's act of continuing to run was NOT alone. Along with his continued running was his impedence of a following play being made on another runner. That's interference.

 

Right: that act alone is not sufficient for an INT call, so he must do some further act, beyond and distinct from merely continuing to run the bases.

 

The BR in the OP did not (as far as we know) do any such further act. The defense threw the ball and hit him. That is not INT because the BR did not do it. All he did was continue to run, which the rules specifically, explicitly, and in no uncertain terms permit him to do.

 

I disagree that 7.09e requires a further, seperate, or distinct act (thought those aren't excluded). Why isn't an accompanying act  a possible additional act. He continued to advance AND got in the way of a play being made on another runner. This isn't the generally accepted exception to 7.09e where the defense is dumb enough to make a play on an advancing (already out) runner.

 

IMO, 7.09e was put in the rules to prevent the offense from intentionally or unintentionally mucking up a following play. Giving this runner a pass because he didn't do anything intentional just isn't cricket.

 

I see what you are saying. The retired BR continued to run, and, he got hit with the thrown ball.  But, he did not intentionally act in such a way as to get hit with the ball --- "intentionally interferes" is the wording in 7.09(j). Therefore, his getting in the way of the throw was not intentional, so it is not interference.  There is such a thing as an "unintentional act" in law, at least, but it does not apply to interference with with a thrown ball in baseball.

[Thunderheads]

wait a minute ..........the BR ran the pop up out ....... he is certainly permitted to do this.

[JHSump]

wait a minute ..........the BR ran the pop up out ....... he is certainly permitted to do this.

Yes, I agree @Thunderheads.  I was commenting on the "other act" (being hit by the throw) which @ricka56 is worried about.

[ricka56]

 I was commenting on the "other act" (being hit by the throw) which @ricka56 is worried about.

 

What ? me worry ?

[Rich Ives]

Here we go again.

 

Rule 7.08b intentionally interfers with a thrown ball  does not apply. That rule is for runners. The OP was a retired runner and rule 7.09e applies. But that's not the whole story there is a 7.09e comment about runners who continue to advance.

 

If BR keeps running (even though he is out), and the defense, for some reason, thinks he hasn't yet been put out and makes a play on him, then he is not guilty of interference per 7.09(e) comments.  The comment says that this  "act alone" is not interference. But in the OP,  BR's act of continuing to run was NOT alone. Along with his continued running was his impedence of a following play being made on another runner. That's interference.

 

He has to do something other than just running. He didn't. It's not interference.

[ricka56]

 

Here we go again.

 

Rule 7.08b intentionally interfers with a thrown ball  does not apply. That rule is for runners. The OP was a retired runner and rule 7.09e applies. But that's not the whole story there is a 7.09e comment about runners who continue to advance.

 

If BR keeps running (even though he is out), and the defense, for some reason, thinks he hasn't yet been put out and makes a play on him, then he is not guilty of interference per 7.09(e) comments.  The comment says that this  "act alone" is not interference. But in the OP,  BR's act of continuing to run was NOT alone. Along with his continued running was his impedence of a following play being made on another runner. That's interference.

 

He has to do something other than just running. He didn't. It's not interference.

 

Look harder    ...k, I'm done.