Offensive Interference

[Guest Wade]

Hi, I'm wondering if you could elaborate on a call we had today. Summer Club ball for HS players. Tournament is using NFHS rules. 
Runner on 1st.
Batter hits grounder to shortstop. 
Shortstop fields and flips to second for the force out. The runner from first is approx halfway to second at the time of the play. 

The second baseman then throws to 1st for the double play but his throw veers left pulling the first baseman off the bag. The batter is initially called safe but then called out on "Offensive Interference" by the runner going to second because he did NOT peel off to provide a clear "lane" for the second baseman to throw to 1st. 

I'm thinking this Umpire is making a loose interpretation of the MLB rule intended to reduce "takeout slides" at second. But this runner was nowhere near second base at the time. Is a runner expected to see that he's out on the force and deviate from his path to give the defense a "throwing lane"?   

[Rich Ives]

30 minutes ago, Guest Wade said:

Hi, I'm wondering if you could elaborate on a call we had today. Summer Club ball for HS players. Tournament is using NFHS rules. 
Runner on 1st.
Batter hits grounder to shortstop. 
Shortstop fields and flips to second for the force out. The runner from first is approx halfway to second at the time of the play. 

The second baseman then throws to 1st for the double play but his throw veers left pulling the first baseman off the bag. The batter is initially called safe but then called out on "Offensive Interference" by the runner going to second because he did NOT peel off to provide a clear "lane" for the second baseman to throw to 1st. 

I'm thinking this Umpire is making a loose interpretation of the MLB rule intended to reduce "takeout slides" at second. But this runner was nowhere near second base at the time. Is a runner expected to see that he's out on the force and deviate from his path to give the defense a "throwing lane"?   

There's no MLB rule requiring a "peel off".  They can keep running. And if all they do is run it is NOT interference by rule.

FED has some kind of "about halfway" ruling that I'll leave to the FED guys.

[noumpere]

Based on the description in the OP, I would not have any. A runner near the base needs to slide or run away from the play; a case play makes it clear that a runner who is less than half way to second is not out of hit by the throw; so the only issue is where do we draw the line between the two.  For me, it's about where R1 would normally start his slide.

 

[The Man in Blue]

I’m going to agree with it being a “loose interpretation” ... I mean muffler-hanging-off-causing-sparks kind of loose.

Unless the runner did something deliberate (deviated into the ball, raised his hand at it), I don’t agree with that interpretation though.

What fielder is throwing straight down the base path anyway?  I’d almost wonder if the fielder was trying to draw that call.