No idea at all! What's the call?

[Double Up]

Situation is runners on 1st and 2b.

BR  hits a ball to gap in right. 

R2 comes around scores standing up. 

Throw comes to the plate, and  R1 slides in safely. 

The ball goes to the back stop,  and as the player in the catcher position is accidentally tripped to the ground by R1 who's getting up from his slide. 

The Catcher was clear of the slide when he started running towards the ball,  couple steps into his pursuit,  R1 somehow tripped him up. 

The R1 was already safe...  so I had no idea what to call.   I get that sometimes contact happens and it's just part of playing baseball, but with this one..  the BR was now rounding 3rd base, so I called the ball "dead",  Ending the play...   after all, this was just a scrimmage,  but I'm not exactly sure how this call would have been viewed in tournament play when the entire world is at stake.   

   

[Biscuit]

If the scored runner was continuing his normal running of the bases, and this wasn't intentional, I probably have nothing. If it was intentional or his actions were not part of running the bases, I have interference, call the BR out.

[Double Up]

24 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

If the scored runner was continuing his normal running of the bases, and this wasn't intentional, I probably have nothing. If it was intentional or his actions were not part of running the bases, I have interference, call the BR out.

Definitely not an act of running the bases,  it was more so an act of running back to the 3rd base dugout.  

Guess I missed another oppty to call "out".

I just couldn't logical make sense of calling the BR out for the actions of R1 who was now safely into home plate.

[Stk004]

7 hours ago, Double Up said:

Definitely not an act of running the bases,  it was more so an act of running back to the 3rd base dugout.  

Guess I missed another oppty to call "out".

I just couldn't logical make sense of calling the BR out for the actions of R1 who was now safely into home plate.

MLB has made it very clear that the benefit of the doubt goes to the runner when he's continuing to run/slide through a base after being retired or having scored. Or even going back to a base. 

With that said, I agree with you here. I'd say once the runner gets up and changes direction to head back to the third base dugout, his protection for 'continuing to run the bases normally' has ended and he has committed interference by tripping F2. BR is out by the actions of a runner that has just scored. 

[The Man in Blue]

I’m going to go with: you could have called it either way, but it is a definite “had to see it” to know.

I would also say the way you call this is going to be different based on the age and experience level, despite the rule book that tries to apply itself to both.  
 

Low level, younger kids ... I’m asking myself “is that something the runner would be expected to do (right or wrong) OR did he do it to get in the way?”  If it was a dumb kid mistake, I think you did the right thing.

Competitive play, high school, adults ... I probably have an out on the BR.  The reason the penalty applies to the batter runner is because he is the only player still in play AND he is the one who benefitted.

[Double Up]

definitely the change in direction  back to the dug out... 

 

Score the run, BR is out on the subsequent inference as there's no one else to call out. 

 

 

[flyingron]

You can't unscore the run.   Now if there was another runner trailing, you'd have to make a call, but what was the runner interfering with?

[Stk004]

58 minutes ago, flyingron said:

You can't unscore the run.   Now if there was another runner trailing, you'd have to make a call, but what was the runner interfering with?

The scored runner interfered with the ability of the defense to make a play on the batter runner. Thus, the batter runner is called out for the interference of his teammate because, as you said, you can't unscore the run. 

[MadMax]

On 12/3/2019 at 11:41 AM, Double Up said:

so I had no idea what to call.   I get that sometimes contact happens and it's just part of playing baseball, but with this one..  the BR was now rounding 3rd base, so I called the ball "dead",  Ending the play... 

Here’s something that jumped out at me... where’s the pitcher, backing up the throw to the plate? Multiple runners on with a multi-base hit, the pitcher should start heading towards the plate to back up the incoming throw, and position himself towards the backstop. Pros know to do this, college players know to do this, high-end high school age amateurs know to do this... that this pitcher wasn’t there indicates these players were amateur – little kid to youth. Then, when you say “scrimmage”, this ices it. Instructional, low-end high school at best.

So, that establishes context.

Granted, without being there to see it happen, but do you really think R1 intentionally – went out of his way, made a distinct effort to – interfered with the catcher so as to trip him? Let’s extrapolate this further... what if the throw had gotten lodged in the backstop, or kicked into the dugout or some other DBT? Can’t exactly call interference – and an out – on a ball that’s unplayable and dead, can we?

Thus, as it is many times, comes down to judgement. At that context, don’t fall into the trappings and rigidity of rulings devoid of judgements and interpretations. Take it for what it is – a play and call during a scrimmage – and a learning opportunity for all involved.

[beerguy55]

Did the retired/scored runner interfere with a play on B/R.

If B/R was never coming home anyway, there's nothing to interfere with.  If he reached home as a result of the trip, then it's probably interference.  And if he gets thrown out at home then you don't need to worry about explaining or arguing INT.

Let the play finish, first, to give you the full context to what you're dealing with.  If there's nothing to interfere with there's no interference.  

And though OBR gives some leeway to the retired runner continuing to run the bases, a scored runner can't continue to run the bases.  With the exception of completing the natural motion of his slide, or possibly where he returns to third (mistakenly) thinking he missed that base, the bar should be set very low if he does impede the defense's ability to play on another runner.   No, he can't disappear, but whether he just lays next to the plate for 20 seconds, or gets up to go to the dugout, the onus is on HIM to allow the defense to play.   Baseball has all kinds of instances of OBS and INT where the fact that it was genuinely unintentional or accidental is irrelevant.  When it is relevant, the rules say so.  This is one of those cases where it's not relevant.

[jonathantullos]

Unless I have some reason to believe that the trip was intentional, I have nothing. From your scenario, it sounds like no-call would be my call.

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, jonathantullos said:

Unless I have some reason to believe that the trip was intentional, I have nothing. From your scenario, it sounds like no-call would be my call.

Intent is not relevant here.

[jonathantullos]

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

Intent is not relevant here.

Are you really going to penalize the runner when it sounds like he was getting up and the defensive player just happened to be in the way? This is where it's good to understand the spirit of the rule, not just the letter.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, jonathantullos said:

Are you really going to penalize the runner when it sounds like he was getting up and the defensive player just happened to be in the way? This is where it's good to understand the spirit of the rule, not just the letter.

The onus is on the scored/retired runner to get out of the way.  The rules are clear that intent is not relevant for scored/retired runner interference.    In this scenario the spirit and letter are the same.  There are cases, defined in the rules, where intent matters and cases where it doesn't...this is one of those times it doesn't.  Just like a base runner that gets hit by a screaming line drive...there's no intent, and he had no chance to avoid it, but he's still out.

Unless he is still completing his slide, the retired/scored runner has a high degree of responsibility to get out of the way of the defense and not impede any further plays against other runners.

 

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, jonathantullos said:

Are you really going to penalize the runner when it sounds like he was getting up and the defensive player just happened to be in the way? This is where it's good to understand the spirit of the rule, not just the letter.

Yes, I will.

And one needs to understand the rule before one can talk about spirit vs. letter (which is also irrelevant here.)

[jonathantullos]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

Yes, I will.

And one needs to understand the rule before one can talk about spirit vs. letter (which is also irrelevant here.)

I understand the rule just fine, thank you. Maybe the disconnect is which ruleset. What you say may be true in OBR. In FED, 8-4-1a indicates that intent does play into the decision. If it's an accident - which in this scenario seems to be the case - then I've still got nothing. 

[jonathantullos]

And in FED, in the subsection before, the verbiage on interference is pretty vague so, to me, that's a judgment call. 

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, jonathantullos said:

I understand the rule just fine, thank you. Maybe the disconnect is which ruleset. What you say may be true in OBR. In FED, 8-4-1a indicates that intent does play into the decision. If it's an accident - which in this scenario seems to be the case - then I've still got nothing. 

8-4-1a has nothing to do with this play.

[jonathantullos]

3 minutes ago, Matt said:

8-4-1a has nothing to do with this play.

Then educate me and point me to the correct rule. If I'm wrong, I need to fix it... but without a rule reference to correct me, I still got nothing.

[The Man in Blue]

Circa the 2018 NFHS book: 8-4-2(g).

The only question is: In your judgment, could another runner have been put out?

Now, you may make note that the rule starts with “intentionally”.  However, if you read the way the rule is written, that “intentionally” does NOT apply to a retired runner (nor does it apply on a potential double play) — it only applies to a runner.

[The Man in Blue]

Edit - deleted duplicate post.

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by The Man in Blue
Duplicate

[beerguy55]

17 hours ago, jonathantullos said:

I understand the rule just fine, thank you. Maybe the disconnect is which ruleset. What you say may be true in OBR. In FED, 8-4-1a indicates that intent does play into the decision. If it's an accident - which in this scenario seems to be the case - then I've still got nothing. 

OBR - 6.01-a(5) It is interference when: "Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate"

And to add to the above FED rule set, in case there's any question to a retired runner vs a scored runner.

FED - Section 30 - "ART. 3 . . . A retired runner is a player of the team at bat who has been put out, or who has scored and is still in live-ball area"

 

I'm also pretty sure there's a FED case play supporting the interpretation held by the others in this thread, that retired runner interference does not require intent.  The only exception here is if he is continuing to run the bases normally.  Something a scored runner can not do.

 

 

[Biscuit]

3 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

OBR - 6.01-a(5) It is interference when: "Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate"

And to add to the above FED rule set, in case there's any question to a retired runner vs a scored runner.

FED - Section 30 - "ART. 3 . . . A retired runner is a player of the team at bat who has been put out, or who has scored and is still in live-ball area"

 

I'm also pretty sure there's a FED case play supporting the interpretation held by the others in this thread, that retired runner interference does not require intent.  The only exception here is if he is continuing to run the bases normally.  Something a scored runner can not do.

 

 

Except for the action of oversliding, but we're well past that point if I understand the play correctly.

[catsbackr]

I guess the scored runner has to just DISAPPEAR.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, catsbackr said:

I guess the scored runner has to just DISAPPEAR.

No, but his actions cannot hinder the defense.

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, catsbackr said:

I guess the scored runner has to just DISAPPEAR.

Just like a base runner has to disappear when a screaming line drive is hit at him.

SH*# happens.