retired runner continues along the base path

[Ironhead17]

Bases loaded, 1 out. Fly ball to R/C - caught. R3 tags w/o incident, scores. R2 bluffs. R1 half way retreats to 1st. Batter/runner continues to run the basepath and approaches 2nd bases drawing a throw from the cut off man - 9-4 who sees retired runner and throws to 6 who applies tag and base umpire calls him out thinking it was R1 just being off the bag. Well as plate, I look up to see my partner's fist go up and now I'm thinking WTH - that's 3 outs. Defense clears the field and in the meantime we realize that a mistake was made. After some bs we get everyone back and resume play R2 and R1 at their original bases. This team has a propensity to do this sort of crap so I have a word w/ the coach suggesting they not continue the practice with the threat of interference being reached for. He knows what he's done and says he'll "continue to teach his kids to run every play out....blah, blah, blah."

I've got them again this week and I've also heard from others in our association that it's a reoccurring problem with just this team.

My question is: Can I get an out if the defense reacts to this practice and what is the rule of casebook support? I hope I was clear. Trying to do this while "on the clock"....

Thanks for any help. Association president is likely to chime in as an answer is pending from him as well.

Ironhead

[ALStripes17]

Bases loaded, 1 out. Fly ball to R/C - caught. R3 tags w/o incident, scores. R2 bluffs. R1 half way retreats to 1st. Batter/runner continues to run the basepath and approaches 2nd bases drawing a throw from the cut off man - 9-4 who sees retired runner and throws to 6 who applies tag and base umpire calls him out thinking it was R1 just being off the bag. Well as plate, I look up to see my partner's fist go up and now I'm thinking WTH - that's 3 outs. Defense clears the field and in the meantime we realize that a mistake was made. After some bs we get everyone back and resume play R2 and R1 at their original bases. This team has a propensity to do this sort of crap so I have a word w/ the coach suggesting they not continue the practice with the threat of interference being reached for. He knows what he's done and says he'll "continue to teach his kids to run every play out....blah, blah, blah."

I've got them again this week and I've also heard from others in our association that it's a reoccurring problem with just this team.

My question is: Can I get an out if the defense reacts to this practice and what is the rule of casebook support? I hope I was clear. Trying to do this while "on the clock"....

Thanks for any help. Association president is likely to chime in as an answer is pending from him as well.

Ironhead

8.3.3 Situation I (as in 'eye').

I don't think you have any backing with that case play in the books. Defense (and umpires) should know when the BR is out. As bush as it may be, the coach is right in saying his BR has a right to run the bases.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

You don't mention the code, but I'm guessing this is FED.

Don't call INT: as described, this is not INT. OBR has explicit wording to the effect that merely continuing to run the bases is not runner or retired runner INT.

No FED rule supports INT here. AL has provided a reference to a play that rules this action legal.

[Jimurray]

The question is, what do you do when that batter is HBP the next at bat?

[ALStripes17]

The question is, what do you do when that batter is HBP the next at bat?

Award him 1B.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ElkOil]

7 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Award him 1B.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

And if it's judged to be intentional, you can warn or eject the pitcher.

[ALStripes17]

And if it's judged to be intentional, you can warn or eject the pitcher.

We all know what Jim's asking. I was giving a sarcastic response sans smiley face.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Ironhead17]

Yes FED. It's always bush with these guys.....

I'm afraid they have found a "loophole" and are willing to run it into the ground. I really don't see the purpose it serves. Likely hoping for an over throw while the ball is alive. I'll be screaming the batter runner is out to try and prevent mass confusion.

 

Thanks

[maven]

21 minutes ago, Ironhead17 said:

Yes FED. It's always bush with these guys.....

I'm afraid they have found a "loophole" and are willing to run it into the ground. I really don't see the purpose it serves. Likely hoping for an over throw while the ball is alive. I'll be screaming the batter runner is out to try and prevent mass confusion.

I don't recommend that mechanic.

Rather, just use your standard mechanic for a catch, perhaps a little louder: "That's a CATCH!" Nobody can complain that you are changing your mechanics in order to disadvantage one side (which sounds like cheating).

In general, when we encounter this sort of thing, we have to judge whether the actions rise to the level of "behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play," which is prohibited by 3-3-1f. If you do judge that this team's actions violate this provision, then I recommend addressing it directly, as prescribed by rule, rather than changing how you officiate in order to "balance things out" in some way.

[ElkOil]

1 hour ago, ALStripes17 said:

We all know what Jim's asking. I was giving a sarcastic response sans smiley face.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Mudisfun]

Other than running the bases... is the retired b/r doing anything overt? Trying to get into a rundown for instance? In that case you may have grounds for INT. Just finishing running the bases though by rule is nothing.

[Ironhead17]

Well most guys realize they are out and will stop to avoid running the risk of passing the previous runner so it's not a common problem. These guys realize that by continuing to round the bases, they can likely cause confusion and thereby benefit from a (JV level) misdirection of the defensive efforts.

[maven]

4 minutes ago, Ironhead17 said:

Well most guys realize they are out and will stop to avoid running the risk of passing the previous runner so it's not a common problem. These guys realize that by continuing to round the bases, they can likely cause confusion and thereby benefit from a (JV level) misdirection of the defensive efforts.

There's no such risk: the BR is out on the catch, so he can't be out again for passing a preceding runner. Unlike retired runner INT, that out is "non-transferable."

A well-coached F2 should pick this up and direct his team-mates to ignore the BR.

[Ironhead17]

In the event that F8 drops the ball....

[ALStripes17]

In the event that F8 drops the ball....

In which case he's out before the catch anyway...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk