Retired runner interference?

[Doug63]

Situation....routine double play at 2nd....a) SS takes throw from 2nd baseman ..tags bag...but holds up throw as to not hit retired baserunner still running in the base

                                                                       path 20' from 2nd

                                                                   b) identical situation as above but this time SS makes the throw and hits the retired baserunner

Questions...1)Should interference be called in either or both of the above situations? 2) Is retired runner required to vacate base path once an imminent play is developing 

Not much help in NFHS rule book on these situations which usually are very contentious.

 

 

 

[SH0102]

30 minutes ago, Doug63 said:

Situation....routine double play at 2nd....a) SS takes throw from 2nd baseman ..tags bag...but holds up throw as to not hit retired baserunner still running in the base

                                                                       path 20' from 2nd

                                                                   b) identical situation as above but this time SS makes the throw and hits the retired baserunner

Questions...1)Should interference be called in either or both of the above situations? 2) Is retired runner required to vacate base path once an imminent play is developing 

Not much help in NFHS rule book on these situations which usually are very contentious.

 

 

 

A runner who has been retired is permitted to continue advancing (what if SS bobbles ball and umpire deems it was no catch), however, few things come into play:

The runner can not do anything intentional to INT (hands go up, veer into throw, etc)

On a force play, the runner must slide or give himself up IN THE VICINITY OF THE BASE.  Key to me in your situation is that he is well off the bag.  

If we call INT simply bc the SS pegged the runner who did nothing but run towards his next base and was not in the vicinity of the base, we would invite every middle infielder to just throw at the runner when they think they don’t have time to get the batter (he’s too fast)

 

[maven]

20' is pretty far, not close enough to slide or peel off. I've got nothing in either scenario. F6 has to throw around a retired runner who's that for off the base.

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 Baseball Rule Differences by Carl Childress (section 350, p. 234):

Official Interpretation:  Hopkins:  On a force play a runner hit by a throw between bases is NOT guilty of interference if he did not slide when he is in the baseline and “not even halfway to second:  The runner cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path.” (Hopkins, website 2007 #3)

Note from the BRD:  This official interpretation seems to indicate that a runner who is more than halfway had better hit the dirt.

2007 NFHS Baseball Interpretations

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)

[Doug63]

23 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Official Interpretation:  Hopkins:  On a force play a runner hit by a throw between bases is NOT guilty of interference if he did not slide when he is in the baseline and “not even halfway to second:  The runner cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path.” (Hopkins, website 2007 #3)

In my scenarios (which was actual game) retired runner is 20' from 2nd base only 7' from base cut out radius(13') when SS tags 2nd and holds up throw as runner's  momentum carries him into the cut out radius. I felt runner had plenty of time to peel off but he continued straight toward 2nd. I called INT. Of course, all hell breaks loose at that point.

I agree with the above BRD interpretation but in my scenario runner is only 20' away. What is IN THE VICINITY OF THE BASE definition? 20' 15' 10' 5'?

I made my call based on feel which is very difficult to defend....the rule book needs better guidelines for these situations.

[noumpere]

29 minutes ago, Doug63 said:

In my scenarios (which was actual game) retired runner is 20' from 2nd base only 7' from base cut out radius(13') when SS tags 2nd and holds up throw as runner's  momentum carries him into the cut out radius. I felt runner had plenty of time to peel off but he continued straight toward 2nd. I called INT. Of course, all hell breaks loose at that point.

I agree with the above BRD interpretation but in my scenario runner is only 20' away. What is IN THE VICINITY OF THE BASE definition? 20' 15' 10' 5'?

I made my call based on feel which is very difficult to defend....the rule book needs better guidelines for these situations.

Sometimes you need to umpire.

Most here (and other boards) have described "in the vicinity" as something like "close enough to the base where the runner would normally begin his slide" -- that's a lot less than 20'

 

The FPSR and INT on this is because of safety -- and the fielder isn't in much danger from a runner who is 20' away.

[Senor Azul]

The intent of the force-play slide rule is to ensure the safety of all players—not just the defensive player but the offensive player as well. And we seem to be forgetting an important element of the rule so here is the actual rule—

2019 NFHS rule 8-4-2b

ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases; or

1.    A runner may slide in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder.

 Someone near and dear to you, Mr. noumpere, once posted the following—

Instead, you want the "illegally alters the action of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" from 8-4-2b. A retired runner "near" 2B must either get down or veer off: anything else would count as illegally altering the actions of the fielder and warrant calling the BR out for R1's FPSR violation.

The "alteration" at issue is forcing the fielder to move in order to "throw around" R1. A runner who goes in standing up is (usually intentionally) trying to hinder the backend of the double play in that fashion, and it's illegal by 8-4-2b.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

The intent of the force-play slide rule is to ensure the safety of all players—not just the defensive player but the offensive player as well. And we seem to be forgetting an important element of the rule so here is the actual rule—

2019 NFHS rule 8-4-2b

ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases; or

1.    A runner may slide in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder.

 Someone near and dear to you, Mr. noumpere, once posted the following—

Instead, you want the "illegally alters the action of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" from 8-4-2b. A retired runner "near" 2B must either get down or veer off: anything else would count as illegally altering the actions of the fielder and warrant calling the BR out for R1's FPSR violation.

The "alteration" at issue is forcing the fielder to move in order to "throw around" R1. A runner who goes in standing up is (usually intentionally) trying to hinder the backend of the double play in that fashion, and it's illegal by 8-4-2b.

Was that play the same, or was R1 "in the vicinity" of the bag in that second play?

[Replacematt]

5 hours ago, noumpere said:

Was that play the same, or was R1 "in the vicinity" of the bag in that second play?

What second play?

While FED needs to tighten this rule up regarding this (and rewrite their entire book while they're at it,) knowing the intent of the rule and the clarifying-not-clarifying interpretation, 20' from the base is definitely within the area the runner must legally slide or get out of the way.

[Doug63]

18 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases; or

1.    A runner may slide in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder.

 Someone near and dear to you, Mr. noumpere, once posted the following—

Instead, you want the "illegally alters the action of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" from 8-4-2b. A retired runner "near" 2B must either get down or veer off: anything else would count as illegally altering the actions of the fielder and warrant calling the BR out for R1's FPSR violation.

The "alteration" at issue is forcing the fielder to move in order to "throw around" R1. A runner who goes in standing up is (usually intentionally) trying to hinder the backend of the double play in that fashion, and it's illegal by 8-4-2b.

 

[Doug63]

Thank you Azul for an enlightening interpretation of  "does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" ....I'm now confident I made the correct call in my scenario...armed with the above interpretation I'm much better prepared to deal these calls going forward

 

[The Man in Blue]

On 5/22/2021 at 4:05 PM, Senor Azul said:

From the 2016 Baseball Rule Differences by Carl Childress (section 350, p. 234):

Official Interpretation:  Hopkins:  On a force play a runner hit by a throw between bases is NOT guilty of interference if he did not slide when he is in the baseline and “not even halfway to second:  The runner cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path.” (Hopkins, website 2007 #3)

Note from the BRD:  This official interpretation seems to indicate that a runner who is more than halfway had better hit the dirt.

2007 NFHS Baseball Interpretations

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)

 

 

Bolded in red above ... those are the interpretations that make my skin crawl.  Defining where the player is in the scenario does provide a definitive line of demarcation.  The interpretation has it right in saying that you cannot expect a runner to slide at that point in the base path.  That does NOT say "any runner over half way better slide" and if you are telling a runner to slide when not near the base, you are creating a different safety issue.  The "note" has it wrong and is bad practice.

"In the vicinity" is something that is going to change based on the level of play and skill of the players, so it should NOT be anything that has a defining measurement slapped on it.