What's the ruling?

[Guest Jay]

Runner at 2B one out. Ground ball to second baseman who throws runner out at first, runner advances to third. Retired batter returns to 3B dugout across the infield. 1B inadvertently hits retired runner in the back while returning ball to pitcher. Ball drops to ground and runner from third scores. Umpire should probably not allowed runner to use that path to return to dugout but caught that action too late. I don't know how a penalty can be imposed on a retired runner so is there interference?  The action of the return throw was inadvertent so is this a live play or does the runner return to third or is a penalty imposed (called out)on the runner who scored?

[maven]

Although the bar for INT is lower for retired runners than it is for runners, the retired runner is not required to disappear, and returning to the dugout across the field during a live ball is legal. There is no INT in this situation unless the retired runner intentionally interferes with the throw (say, by backing up into it or reaching out to knock down the ball).

Mechanics: a no-call (signal "safe" and verbalize "that's nothing!") is advisable here. It shows that we saw the action and have ruled that it's not illegal.

Same ruling for all codes.

[noumpere]

37 minutes ago, Guest Jay said:

Umpire should probably not allowed runner to use that path to return to dugout

How is the umpire supposed to prevent / not allow that?

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, maven said:

Although the bar for INT is lower for retired runners than it is for runners, the retired runner is not required to disappear, and returning to the dugout across the field during a live ball is legal. There is no INT in this situation unless the retired runner intentionally interferes with the throw (say, by backing up into it or reaching out to knock down the ball).

Mechanics: a no-call (signal "safe" and verbalize "that's nothing!") is advisable here. It shows that we saw the action and have ruled that it's not illegal.

Same ruling for all codes.

Even if they did something intentional, why would you have INT? Who would you call out?

The problem here is that retired runners cannot interfere with a play at all (with the exception of the base-running clause, not applicable here)--but we have no play until it happens. I don't feel intent plays a role in itself--it's either INT or it isn't.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, maven said:

Although the bar for INT is lower for retired runners than it is for runners, the retired runner is not required to disappear, and returning to the dugout across the field during a live ball is legal. There is no INT in this situation unless the retired runner intentionally interferes with the throw (say, by backing up into it or reaching out to knock down the ball).

Mechanics: a no-call (signal "safe" and verbalize "that's nothing!") is advisable here. It shows that we saw the action and have ruled that it's not illegal.

Same ruling for all codes.

I don't think it's the same for all codes. In OBR once a retired runner stops normal baserunning he is at risk for unintentional interference. 

[beerguy55]

 

11 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I don't think it's the same for all codes. In OBR once a retired runner stops normal baserunning he is at risk for unintentional interference. 

 

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Even if they did something intentional, why would you have INT? Who would you call out?

The problem here is that retired runners cannot interfere with a play at all (with the exception of the base-running clause, not applicable here)--but we have no play until it happens. I don't feel intent plays a role in itself--it's either INT or it isn't.

OBR specifically talks about a retired runner impeding a play being made on another runner...and the penalty is calling out said runner.  There was no play on a runner here.

Unless by spirit of the rule you extend the INT to any runner that benefits from the play...then what...call out the runner closest to home?

[Replacematt]

30 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

OBR specifically talks about a retired runner impeding a play being made on another runner...and the penalty is calling out said runner.  There was no play on a runner here.

Unless by spirit of the rule you extend the INT to any runner that benefits from the play...then what...call out the runner closest to home?

I think you just said what I said.

[Jimurray]

18 minutes ago, Matt said:

I think you just said what I said.

What would we rule if this retired runner intentionally interfered with the throw?  

[Jimurray]

51 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 

 

OBR specifically talks about a retired runner impeding a play being made on another runner...and the penalty is calling out said runner.  There was no play on a runner here.

Unless by spirit of the rule you extend the INT to any runner that benefits from the play...then what...call out the runner closest to home?

So with multiple runners on, the batter-runner flies out to the outfield and the throw is on the way to the cutoff with a choice of plays at various bases. The batter-runner leaves the basepath and is hit by the throw on his way to the dugout. In OBR that would be INT. Do we call out the runner we thought a play was going to made on? 

[Jimurray]

7 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

So with multiple runners on, the batter-runner flies out to the outfield and the throw is on the way to the cutoff with a choice of plays at various bases. The batter-runner leaves the basepath and is hit by the throw on his way to the dugout. In OBR that would be INT. Do we call out the runner we thought a play was going to made on? 

And return other runners TOI? (had to add, can't find out how to edit my post)

[maven]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

I don't think it's the same for all codes. In OBR once a retired runner stops normal baserunning he is at risk for unintentional interference. 

1. That's not what it says: the rule makes a point about what is NOT interference; nothing follows logically about what IS interference.
2. What's abnormal about a retired runner returning to the dugout?

[Replacematt]

5 minutes ago, maven said:

1. That's not what it says: the rule makes a point about what is NOT interference; nothing follows logically about what IS interference.
2. What's abnormal about a retired runner returning to the dugout?

It has been published that retired runners have an absolute obligation to avoid interfering with a throw unless continuing to advance or retreat to a base (it's in the WUM, and my new one should arrive this week.) This has been discussed at length here and I'm surprised you are not aware of it (it's not relatively new, either.)

Also...it looks like you are aware of it? 

 

[SH0102]

21 minutes ago, Matt said:

It has been published that retired runners have an absolute obligation to avoid interfering with a throw unless continuing to advance or retreat to a base (it's in the WUM, and my new one should arrive this week.) This has been discussed at length here and I'm surprised you are not aware of it (it's not relatively new, either.)

Also...it looks like you are aware of it? 

 

Matt, I am far from an expert on rules, but in my opinion, you are way overthinking this...here is my 2 cents...

1)  Is there a rule that says a retired batter/runner MUST return to their dugout in foul territory?  No, thus, returning across the diamond, while maybe not preferred, is not illegal.

2)  Did the retired runner/batter do anything intentional?  No.  He got hit in the back.

If you call that INT, then every fielder in America is going to start playing pinball with retired runners/batters when they are in the field returning to their dugouts.

They are obligated to not cause INT, and I would surmise that the "unintentional" part of the rule code you are referring to is when they unintentionally INT with a PLAY being made on another runner.

Let's say R2 made a big turn around third and the 1B got the batter out and then tried to gun down R2 at third.  By the batter turning into the infield and getting in the way of that PLAY, I am fine with INT being called, intentional or not.

But if you say INT and call R2 (now R3) out because F3 couldn't wait one more second to toss the ball to his pitcher, then you are inviting every defensive player to do this and draw an INT call from you.

[Replacematt]

5 minutes ago, ShaunH said:

Matt, I am far from an expert on rules, but in my opinion, you are way overthinking this...here is my 2 cents...

1)  Is there a rule that says a retired batter/runner MUST return to their dugout in foul territory?  No, thus, returning across the diamond, while maybe not preferred, is not illegal.

2)  Did the retired runner/batter do anything intentional?  No.  He got hit in the back.

If you call that INT, then every fielder in America is going to start playing pinball with retired runners/batters when they are in the field returning to their dugouts.

They are obligated to not cause INT, and I would surmise that the "unintentional" part of the rule code you are referring to is when they unintentionally INT with a PLAY being made on another runner.

Let's say R2 made a big turn around third and the 1B got the batter out and then tried to gun down R2 at third.  By the batter turning into the infield and getting in the way of that PLAY, I am fine with INT being called, intentional or not.

But if you say INT and call R2 (now R3) out because F3 couldn't wait one more second to toss the ball to his pitcher, then you are inviting every defensive player to do this and draw an INT call from you.

I'm not overthinking this at all, nor have I said this is INT.

[Jimurray]

30 minutes ago, maven said:

1. That's not what it says: the rule makes a point about what is NOT interference; nothing follows logically about what IS interference.
2. What's abnormal about a retired runner returning to the dugout?

Maybe @Senor Azul might post what Wendelstedt currently says but this from back a few years and it will probably be removed for some kind of copyright issue:

 

[SH0102]

Just now, Matt said:

I'm not overthinking this at all, nor have I said this is INT.

Oops, my apologies...I think I mistook your replies to Maven and remembered someone else's posts as if they were your own.  Sorry!

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Maybe @Senor Azul might post what Wendelstedt currently says but this from back a few years and it will probably be removed for some kind of copyright issue:

 

I think we're all in agreement about what happens if there is a play.

The issue is how to treat this when there is no play. 

[Rich Ives]

Great. Revert to kickball. Just plunk the runner to get an out.

 

And cutting across the infield after being put out IS normal.

[Jimurray]

15 minutes ago, Matt said:

I think we're all in agreement about what happens if there is a play.

The issue is how to treat this when there is no play. 

There should have been a following play on R3. The retired runner hindered that play to the extent that it didn't happen. I don't know if you can work backwards like that but it might be in compliance with the rule.

[SH0102]

I want to be a fly on the wall at any game an umpire points at R3 and says "you're out for INT on the retired batter" and watch the chaos that ensues.

I think an umpire who kills it and puts R3 back could at least get away without much heave-ho, but if the BU turns his back and gets plunked, are you killing the ball?  I'm not.

A retired runner doing exactly what he is supposed to do, leave the field after being put out, is just another part of the field unless he does something intentionally.

[Replacematt]

7 minutes ago, ShaunH said:

I want to be a fly on the wall at any game an umpire points at R3 and says "you're out for INT on the retired batter" and watch the chaos that ensues.

I think an umpire who kills it and puts R3 back could at least get away without much heave-ho, but if the BU turns his back and gets plunked, are you killing the ball?  I'm not.

A retired runner doing exactly what he is supposed to do, leave the field after being put out, is just another part of the field unless he does something intentionally.

Your last sentence is not accurate, as shown above.

The problem is finding a rules basis for the solution you and others have proposed. We can call it INT and have it supported (and being the harsh consequence,) we can find support to call it nothing and play on as there was no play, but there just isn't something (to my knowledge) that can split the difference.

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, ShaunH said:

I want to be a fly on the wall at any game an umpire points at R3 and says "you're out for INT on the retired batter" and watch the chaos that ensues.

I think an umpire who kills it and puts R3 back could at least get away without much heave-ho, but if the BU turns his back and gets plunked, are you killing the ball?  I'm not.

A retired runner doing exactly what he is supposed to do, leave the field after being put out, is just another part of the field unless he does something intentionally.

So what would you call if he did something intentional?

 

[SH0102]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Your last sentence is not accurate, as shown above.

The problem is finding a rules basis for the solution you and others have proposed. We can call it INT and have it supported (and being the harsh consequence,) we can find support to call it nothing and play on as there was no play, but there just isn't something (to my knowledge) that can split the difference.

I am struggling to understand what you mean.  If he isn't part of the field, then a guy who just got thrown out stealing 2nd base, who has no choice but to return to his dugout via fair territory, is fair game for any fielder who wants to hit him with the ball to create another out.

[Jimurray]

17 minutes ago, ShaunH said:

I am struggling to understand what you mean.  If he isn't part of the field, then a guy who just got thrown out stealing 2nd base, who has no choice but to return to his dugout via fair territory, is fair game for any fielder who wants to hit him with the ball to create another out.

In OBR that retired stealer must be aware of and avoid any following throw to play on any other runner. In the OP if we have hindrance with a following play the retired runner would be guilty of INT whether intentional or not. But let's say the OP intentionally interfered. What would you call?

[aaluck]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

We can call it INT and have it supported (and being the harsh consequence,) we can find support to call it nothing and play on as there was no play, but there just isn't something (to my knowledge) that can split the difference.

I think that we are making this far more complex than need be.  

This is no different than a batter striking out and as he steps across the plate to return to his dugout the catcher hits him in the helmet with the ball while trying to return it to the pitcher--and I have had this happen more than once.  So if the ball goes to the backstop and R3 scores do we have interference? If we do then we all have to start calling time to remove retired folks off the diamond safely. There are countless situations (not plays) when this could and does happen.

Throwing the ball to the pitcher after an out is NOT making a play on the runner, just as throwing the ball to the pitcher after a strike out is not a play, just as an outfielder lazily throwing a caught pop fly back into the infield past the cutoff man.

Everyone here is free to do what they want and find a rule to back it.  HOWEVER, I will never reward a player for stupidity and to take a run off the board because someone is not paying attention and waiting an extra three seconds before throwing a ball somewhere it doesn't need to be in a hurry.

[maven]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Your last sentence is not accurate, as shown above.

The problem is finding a rules basis for the solution you and others have proposed. We can call it INT and have it supported (and being the harsh consequence,) we can find support to call it nothing and play on as there was no play, but there just isn't something (to my knowledge) that can split the difference.

I agree that the issue is how to handle retired runner getting hit by a throw when there's no play. I was aware of the greater onus on a retired runner to stay out of the way of the defense making a play on another runner, but that's not what this is. There was no play: R2 was holding at 3B, and advanced only AFTER the ball hit his teammate.

I'm inclined to put this on the defense: F3 has nothing better to pay attention to than getting the ball to F1 and avoiding the retired runner.

As for splitting the difference: a third option is to kill it, put R2 back on 3B, and get ready for the next pitch. No INT, no advantage gained, no run.