7.09 Interference ?

[mbrown2097]

Hey guys,

Bases Loaded, 1 out.

Ground ball, attempted double play, out at 2nd and safe at 1st.

Runner going to 2nd continues to run the bases in an attempt to confuse.

 

I have his out as out 2 and the BR out for the interference of his teammate for 3.

Should R3 run count as he crossed well before the deception?

What about R2?

[scrounge]

How slow was the throw to 1st that a continuing R1 could have possibly interfered? I'm just having trouble seeing how this is remotely possible.

 

You're not saying that R1 made an illegal slide or anything, but rather his post-out actions somehow were deceiving and unsporting enough to interfere with the out at 1st?

 

Yeeks. Good luck with that one.

[mbrown2097]

Runner kept running and caused the F4 to hesitate on his throw to 1st.  In hindsight, it probably was a very slow relay throw.  From my perspective, it caused the 2nd baseman to do a double take and hesitate.  Runner knew that he was out.

[ricka56]

Hey guys,

Bases Loaded, 1 out.

Ground ball, attempted double play, out at 2nd and safe at 1st.

Runner going to 2nd continues to run the bases in an attempt to confuse.

 

I have his out as out 2 and the BR out for the interference of his teammate for 3.

Should R3 run count as he crossed well before the deception?

What about R2?

Read the comment in 7.09(e)

[noumpere]

If this is OBR, it's likely nothing.

 

If it's FED, it might be a FPSR violation.

 

In any event, if BR is out before reaching first (even if he's declared out for the actions of some teammate), no runs can score.  See "how a run scores" -- in OBR it's 4.09; it's somewhere in rule 9 for FED

[James Walker]

Runner kept running and caused the F4 to hesitate on his throw to 1st.  In hindsight, it probably was a very slow relay throw.  From my perspective, it caused the 2nd baseman to do a double take and hesitate.  Runner knew that he was out.

As stated, I've got nothing. He didn't interfere with the throw or attempt to take out F4. Make sure you're doing both the verbal and physical mechanics.

[ZebraStripes]

Runner kept running and caused the F4 to hesitate on his throw to 1st.  In hindsight, it probably was a very slow relay throw.  From my perspective, it caused the 2nd baseman to do a double take and hesitate.  Runner knew that he was out.

How does a runner know he is out?  Did you verbalize the call?  I've seen enough "in the neighborhood" plays be called safe that as a baserunner, I'm never know I'm out until you as the umpire tell me I'm out.

[Richvee]

Runner kept running and caused the F4 to hesitate on his throw to 1st.  

F4 hesitated because R1 was running to 3rd or because R1 was in the way of a throw to 1st? I'm having a hard time picturing the former. 

[labguy1971]

Would have to be there for that one.  Based on your statement, I have nothing but the out at 2B.  Good question.

[johnnyg08]

Out at 2B.

 

Retired runners can continue to run the bases.  That act alone is not interference.

[mbrown2097]

_{F4 hesitated because runner continue on to 3rd.} 

 

_{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.}

 

_{Ok, I have read this comment several times over the years and I always read it to mean that I should judge the intent of the runner.  Was he trying to cause confusion or just confused himself.  Now I am reading to say that as long as he is just running the bases, it doesn't matter what his intent it.  Just running the bases isn't enough to be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.  I probably yanked this one.  It's OBR btw..}

 

[maven]

_{F4 hesitated because runner continue on to 3rd.} 

 

_{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.}

 

_{Ok, I have read this comment several times over the years and I always read it to mean that I should judge the intent of the runner.  Was he trying to cause confusion or just confused himself.  Now I am reading to say that as long as he is just running the bases, it doesn't matter what his intent it.  Just running the bases isn't enough to be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.  I probably yanked this one.  It's OBR btw..}

 

 

That's ironic, because by doing so you're undermining the very purpose of the comment. Continuing to run the bases is NOT to be ruled INT, regardless of the runner's intent.

 

Now, the qualification — "by that act alone" — is important. If the runner does something in addition to merely continuing to run the bases, then you might have something. Judging this requires not intent but an additional act.

[ricka56]

_{F4 hesitated because runner continue on to 3rd.} 

 

_{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.}

 

_{Ok, I have read this comment several times over the years and I always read it to mean that I should judge the intent of the runner.  Was he trying to cause confusion or just confused himself.  Now I am reading to say that as long as he is just running the bases, it doesn't matter what his intent it.  Just running the bases isn't enough to be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.  I probably yanked this one.  It's OBR btw..}

 

This rule has been hotly debated on this forum and others. IMO, if the rules makers wanted intent to be the criteria, they would have said so.

 

Your case is (IMO) is the exact sitch that the rules makers had in mind with this rule exception. The fielders are responsible for knowing the situation. If the fielder knew that the runner was out, and still hesitated at seeing him continue to run, then that it on the fielder, not the runner. No interference.

Now, the qualification — "by that act alone" — is important. If the runner does something in addition to merely continuing to run the bases, then you might have something. Judging this requires not intent but an additional act.

 

We have gone round and round on this, and I still disagree. There may be something accompanying his continued running that would be something other that the act of just running. i.e. BR running out of the running lane or a runner getting in the way of a legitimate play on another runner. Those thing are something more than the just the act of running and are not excepted by the 7.09(e) comment. The OP IS  the 7.09(e) exception. The runner continued to run...that act alone...nothing physically mucked up.

[Senor Azul]

From Carl Childress' BRD (2014 edition pp. 180-81):

 

Section 295 Interference By: Batter-Runner or Runner: Continues to Advance After Out

 

NCAA: A retired runner may not continue to advance if such action "hinders or impedes" the defense. PENALTY: The umpire shall call time and declare out the runner affected by the retired runner's actions. (5-3 Pen 2)

 

Official Interpretation:  If a retired runner continuing to advance hinders a following play, the umpire must judge whether the hindrance was INTENTIONAL; if unintentional, the runner is not guilty of interference. (Bill Thurston, 11/19/90)

 

OBR:  Same as NCAA.

[scarolinablue]

I've become well-versed in this due to a local team's propensity to have their runners continue running hard, at least to second base, even on routine fly outs, with a runner on first (or other bases).  Speaking for FED at least, this is "nothing."  Our association debated this to death a few years ago when this team began this tactic, and finally got everybody to agree that this is nothing.  I also agree that the 7.09 exception essentially says the same thing.

 

It doesn't look good, on the surface it appears deceiving, but the onus is on the defense to know the situation.  If you called the runner out at second, then there is no interference on the runner's part and nothing in the rule book to back you up.

 

Of course, what will inevitably happen is that the defense will drop one of these fly balls, and then we've got an easy out for passing a runner.  So, in effect, they're going to get and out on the B-R either way.

[Senor Azul]

The following play is taken from Carl Childress' 2014 BRD (p. 181):

 

R1. B1 hits to right field, where the ball is caught for an out. R1 holds at first, but B1 passes him and makes a dash for second. F9, confused, fires to second, but the ball is wildly overthrown and goes into DBT behind third. RULING:  In FED, R1 is awarded third. In NCAA/OBR, call out R1.

 

 

This play nearly matches FED casebook play 8.3.3 Situation I in the 2014 edition. This forum discussed this very topic about 18-24 months ago in a thread started by UmpireScott from St. Louis (I think)--I can't find the previous thread. If I recall correctly, he said that he ran into this very play in a tournament in Arizona and said something to the effect that the high school coach was teaching all his players to continue running after being retired. I may have the details messed up on this. Perhaps someone else remembers this thread and can find it.

[Jimurray]

The following play is taken from Carl Childress' 2014 BRD (p. 181):

 

R1. B1 hits to right field, where the ball is caught for an out. R1 holds at first, but B1 passes him and makes a dash for second. F9, confused, fires to second, but the ball is wildly overthrown and goes into DBT behind third. RULING:  In FED, R1 is awarded third. In NCAA/OBR, call out R1.

 

 

This play nearly matches FED casebook play 8.3.3 Situation I in the 2014 edition. This forum discussed this very topic about 18-24 months ago in a thread started by UmpireScott from St. Louis (I think)--I can't find the previous thread. If I recall correctly, he said that he ran into this very play in a tournament in Arizona and said something to the effect that the high school coach was teaching all his players to continue running after being retired. I may have the details messed up on this. Perhaps someone else remembers this thread and can find it.

Need more cites from the BRD as to official interps. Both NCAA and OBR have a comment that just by continuing to run it is not INT. What authoritative person advised Carl? He usually quotes them. Not that I like this bush league play.

[Senor Azul]

Thanks for reading and replying to post #16. But way ahead of you. Please see post number 14--it gives the NCAA interpretation, cites the rule the interpretation is based on, and the expert who issued the interpretation.

 

Here's the official interpretation for OBR:

 

Same as NCAA 5-3 Pen 2 and the NCAA Official Interpretation. Mike Fitzpatrick 11/15/00

 

I really made post #16 to support Mr. scarolinablue's statement about the Federation interpretation of this issue.

 

And to the original poster, mbrown2097, your on-field call was right. You have good instincts--trust'em.