Jump to content
  • 0

Runner throw out then hit with the ball


Guest Jaron
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2045 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Had this play in a game played under FED rules:

Bases loaded, no outs. Batter hits a blooping fly ball to shallow center field which is caught by the center fielder. The ball is shallow enough that runners are not initially trying to tag and advance on the cannon arm that the center fielder has. However, the runner on first base is being stupid and gets way too far off the bag during the fly ball and slips and falls when trying to return to first. Thus, the center fielder fires a throw to the first baseman to try and double R1 off. The throw is errant and hits the retired batter in the back of the shoe as he's beginning to jog across the infield towards the third base dugout. The ball takes a really wierd carom off of the retired batter and goes way off to the side away from any fielder, leading to the runner from third advancing home. Does this constitute retired runner interference? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
7 hours ago, Guest Jaron said:

Does this constitute retired runner interference? 

As described, no. This is probably just an E8.

But one would have to be there to really judge. In other words, I may see and describe the same play where interference would be the correct call. Often people come on here and describe a situation in a manner that elicits an interpretation that they desire.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 8/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Guest Jaron said:

Had this play in a game played under FED rules:

Bases loaded, no outs. Batter hits a blooping fly ball to shallow center field which is caught by the center fielder. The ball is shallow enough that runners are not initially trying to tag and advance on the cannon arm that the center fielder has. However, the runner on first base is being stupid and gets way too far off the bag during the fly ball and slips and falls when trying to return to first. Thus, the center fielder fires a throw to the first baseman to try and double R1 off. The throw is errant and hits the retired batter in the back of the shoe as he's beginning to jog across the infield towards the third base dugout. The ball takes a really wierd carom off of the retired batter and goes way off to the side away from any fielder, leading to the runner from third advancing home. Does this constitute retired runner interference? 

Every one is doing what they should be doing. I’d have nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
7 hours ago, Stk004 said:

I know the OP described FED rules, but MLB has really opened a can of worms with the retired runner INT. They seem to be leaning towards wanting INT to be called less. 

MLB has not changed how they interp the rule. They have always protected a retired runner who continues to run the bases normally. They revised the rule to include returning as normal base-running which anyone familiar with their interp would already consider it as such. MLB umps did rule that way before the addition in the rule. In the OP the retired runner is no longer running the bases and in OBR is at risk for being called for INT if you judge he hindered a following play on a runner even if it was unintentional. HTBT.  FED still protects him but OBR does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 8/16/2018 at 12:45 AM, Stk004 said:

I know the OP described FED rules, but MLB has really opened a can of worms with the retired runner INT. They seem to be leaning towards wanting INT to be called less. 

OBR/MLB this is an out.  It's a retired runner who interfered with a subsequent play on a runner, and said retired runner was not simply advancing/retreating the bases.    No intent required for retired runner interference. 

Otherwise, with R3 and a fly ball to F9, I simply round first base, and then casually make my way back to the either dugout in a path that crosses F9's throw to the plate.  I'm not trying to get hit...but I'm not trying to not get hit either...and possibly screening F2 is a bonus...I'm not doing anything "intentionally".

For this reason this SHOULD be an out if FED too, but I don't think they agree with me.   Interesting that the FED definition for a retired runner includes a scored runner (which confuses the notion of a "retired" runner interfering with a double play).

On 8/16/2018 at 4:59 AM, Zach Keller said:

Every one is doing what they should be doing. I’d have nothing. 

That's a lazy argument.  There are many scenarios where everyone is doing what they should be doing but runners/fielders are correctly called for INT/OBS.   I'm not giving a free pass to a kid who obliviously runs across the infield during a live play and gets in the way.   There's a difference between what the kid in the OP did, and returning to either dugout via foul territory...or, at the very least, actually watching where the ball is going to avoid it - which, without a last second deflection, makes this moot as he would not have been hit otherwise.

As the other coach, I'm arguing this all day long, and protesting.  As his coach, I'm not arguing an out call - I'm making him do laps and push-ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Here’s the interpretation (from the 2016 BRD, p. 196) that Messrs. Jimurray and beerguy55 have mentioned:

OBR Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  A runner errantly continuing to run around the bases is not, in itself, interference. If a runner who continues to run around the bases interferes with play, the umpire will signal that’s nothing. However, if a runner who had been put out were to leave the baselines and interfere with a following play, this is interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The index of the 2015 NFHS rule book has just four entries for the term retired runner. They are 2-30-3, 5-1-1e, 8-4-1h, and 8-4-2g. None of these entries says anything about a retired runner who is not continuing to run the bases but has left the base path to return to his dugout. So, Mr. Jimurray, which of these rules supports your contention that FED protects this retired runner?

And I wonder where, Mr. noumpere, the case play or interpretation that is similar to the OP can be found? Because I have looked and the only case play I have found so far that deals with a retired runner is 8.3.3 Situation I. Is it the one you mean?

2015 NFHS Case Book Play 8.3.3 Situation I:  R3 and R1 with one out. B4 hits a fly ball that is caught in right-center field. Both runners tag to advance. R3 legally tags and scores after the catch. R1 stays on first as the batter-runner rounds first and makes a break toward second. F8 throws wildly to F4 who deflects the ball into dead-ball territory. Ruling:  Legal. B4 was out with the catch. Each runner would be awarded two bases from the time the ball left the hand of F8. Therefore, R3 scores and R1 is on third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
42 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

The index of the 2015 NFHS rule book has just four entries for the term retired runner. They are 2-30-3, 5-1-1e, 8-4-1h, and 8-4-2g. None of these entries says anything about a retired runner who is not continuing to run the bases but has left the base path to return to his dugout. So, Mr. Jimurray, which of these rules supports your contention that FED protects this retired runner?

And I wonder where, Mr. noumpere, the case play or interpretation that is similar to the OP can be found? Because I have looked and the only case play I have found so far that deals with a retired runner is 8.3.3 Situation I. Is it the one you mean?

2015 NFHS Case Book Play 8.3.3 Situation I:  R3 and R1 with one out. B4 hits a fly ball that is caught in right-center field. Both runners tag to advance. R3 legally tags and scores after the catch. R1 stays on first as the batter-runner rounds first and makes a break toward second. F8 throws wildly to F4 who deflects the ball into dead-ball territory. Ruling:  Legal. B4 was out with the catch. Each runner would be awarded two bases from the time the ball left the hand of F8. Therefore, R3 scores and R1 is on third.

Good question. I don't know why I was so certain. Maybe some test question in the past. But the combination of 8-4-2g:

"ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:
g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an ­illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out; or"

AND the 2007 interp:

"SITUATION 3: With no outs and R1 on first base, B2 hits a hard ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and steps on second base and then throws to first base in an attempt to double up B2. R1 is running standing up in a straight line to second and is hit by F6's throw. R1 was not even half way to second base and did not intentionally interfere with the throw. The defensive coach states that B2 should also be out since R1 violated the force-play slide rule. RULING: This is not a violation of the force play slide rule. R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path. The play stands. R1 would be out only if he intentionally interfered. (8-4-2b penalty)"

does clarify that the reference to a retired runner in 8-4-2-g without addressing intent would not put the R1 in Sit 3 at risk because he was running in a straight line to 2B and did not intentionally interfere with the throw. I wouldn't mind using the OBR ruling and not protect a retired runner who peels off in FED and maybe you have convinced me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Section 296 on page 197 of the 2016 BRD is titled—

Interference By: Batter-Runner Or Runner: Continues To Advance After Out

It has the following case play:

R3, 1 out. B1 flies out to short center field. R3 retouches, and then heads for home. F8 fires to the plate, but the ball hits BR as he is running across the infield to his third-base dugout. Ruling:  BR is not running the bases. He is guilty of interference. The ball is dead and R3 is out.

Please note that this play is not shown as being just for one level of play. Mr. Jimurray, could you please check your older version of the BRD to see if this play is included and if it assigns the ruling to any particular code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
8 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Section 296 on page 197 of the 2016 BRD is titled—

Interference By: Batter-Runner Or Runner: Continues To Advance After Out

It has the following case play:

R3, 1 out. B1 flies out to short center field. R3 retouches, and then heads for home. F8 fires to the plate, but the ball hits BR as he is running across the infield to his third-base dugout. Ruling:  BR is not running the bases. He is guilty of interference. The ball is dead and R3 is out.

Please note that this play is not shown as being just for one level of play. Mr. Jimurray, could you please check your older version of the BRD to see if this play is included and if it assigns the ruling to any particular code.

It’s not in my 2011 BRD. So all codes may call it the same now depending on who or what is cited in that section. Are there any FED cites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Here’s the main entry for the FED ruling in section 296:  “A batter-runner or runner is not guilty of interference if he continues to advance, even when he knows he is out, even if that advance allows other runners to make additional bases. (8.3.3i)”

The section is shown as having first entered the BRD in 2001. After the three codes rulings and any applicable interpretations are listed, there are five case plays. I posted the only one that deals with a runner who has “peeled off” and the other four deal with a retired runner who continues to advance.

As for the OP, I have interference on the retired batter-runner who is described as heading for his dugout. He is no longer running the bases and fits the definition in FED rule 2-30-3…"A retired runner is a player of the team at bat who has been put out, or who has scored and he is still in live-ball area."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
50 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Here’s the main entry for the FED ruling in section 296:  “A batter-runner or runner is not guilty of interference if he continues to advance, even when he knows he is out, even if that advance allows other runners to make additional bases. (8.3.3i)”

The section is shown as having first entered the BRD in 2001. After the three codes rulings and any applicable interpretations are listed, there are five case plays. I posted the only one that deals with a runner who has “peeled off” and the other four deal with a retired runner who continues to advance.

As for the OP, I have interference on the retired batter-runner who is described as heading for his dugout. He is no longer running the bases and fits the definition in FED rule 2-30-3…"A retired runner is a player of the team at bat who has been put out, or who has scored and he is still in live-ball area."

You have convinced me. Where I and others got the impression FED protects retired runners from unintentional interference off their basepath I don't know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...