Did I blow this interference call?

[Scissors]

Call I made tonight as PU. I'll keep it short and sweet. FED rules.

R2 and R3, 1 out. Pitch gets by F2 and runner scores standing up. F2 still makes the throw and it hits R3 a couple steps after he's crossed the plate, and he grabs it and holds it as it ricochets off his body. I call time immediately, that's interference and pump the out. (What I wish I had done in this moment is point to R2 now standing at third to make it clear WHO was out). Coach comes out and long story short he gets tossed. Me and my partner come together and confirm that since R3 had already scored and was beyond the plate, the out for the interference should be applied to R2. Our thinking was this is the best way to negate the act of the interference, since there could have possibly been a play at third. Should R3 have been out and the run negated or did we get this right?

[Replacematt]

5 minutes ago, Scissors said:

Call I made tonight as PU. I'll keep it short and sweet. FED rules.

R2 and R3, 1 out. Pitch gets by F2 and runner scores standing up. F2 still makes the throw and it hits R3 a couple steps after he's crossed the plate, and he grabs it and holds it as it ricochets off his body. I call time immediately, that's interference and pump the out. (What I wish I had done in this moment is point to R2 now standing at third to make it clear WHO was out). Coach comes out and long story short he gets tossed. Me and my partner come together and confirm that since R3 had already scored and was beyond the plate, the out for the interference should be applied to R2. Our thinking was this is the best way to negate the act of the interference, since there could have possibly been a play at third. Should R3 have been out and the run negated or did we get this right?

This should help...can a runner that's already scored be put out? 

[Senor Azul]

This should help even more.

FED Official Interpretation:  Rumble:  Once a runner has legally scored a run, he cannot nullify the score by any legal action, such as retreating to third in the belief he had missed the base or left too soon. EXCEPT:

A runner who has scored on a force play but is guilty of interference with a fielder nullifies his run. (See case plays 2.32.2D which is a FPSR play and 8.4.2W)

FED Official Interpretation:  Rumble:  A runner who has scored but is guilty of interference with a batted ball keeps his run but causes a teammate to be out.

Since your scenario did not involve a force play I would say that you made the right call. Great job to you and your partner!

[ousafe]

As described, my first take is: how does F2 miss so badly that he hits a runner a couple steps past the plate, unless it's malicious? HTBT.  And how is there a possible play on R2, who is probably arriving at 3b about the same time R3 crosses the plate.  Htbt but I'm probably getting tossed too.

[LC Ump]

I'm also wondering about the fact that this play involved a thrown ball (F2 to F1 covering HP, I assume) rather than a batted ball.

Any interference by R3 would have to be judged to be intentional, correct? As described in the OP it sounds like it was - R3 caught and held the ball after it struck him.

And the penalty would be an out on R2, the runner on whom a possible play was prevented by the interference? R3's run scores, R2 is out #2, BR is at 1b.

[Scissors]

7 hours ago, ousafe said:

As described, my first take is: how does F2 miss so badly that he hits a runner a couple steps past the plate, unless it's malicious? HTBT.  And how is there a possible play on R2, who is probably arriving at 3b about the same time R3 crosses the plate.  Htbt but I'm probably getting tossed too.

There was nothing malicious, it was an underhand throw from the catcher who was not very good. 

 

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, Scissors said:

There was nothing malicious, it was an underhand throw from the catcher who was not very good. 

 

An underhand throw to the plate with R2 NOT trying to score?  Where was the  interference?

[Velho]

5 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

An underhand throw to the plate with R2 NOT trying to score?  Where was the  interference?

I don't think that R2's intent matters. The rule doesn't allow for umpire to "remove impact of the interference". Maybe there should be but there isn't (that I'm aware of).

NFHS SECTION 4 RUNNER IS OUT

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

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball... 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

[SleptTilNoonLOL]

So in this case, if the runner is just standing on his base and in our judgement woul not have been possibly put out, we just kill the play with no penalty, correct? Kinda the same as if a ball bounces toward the on deck circle in a blowout game where runners arent avancing on wild pitches...and the on deck batter picks it up...we are not calling INT because the runners werent showing any interest in advancing. 

 

Curious if others agree with me here

[LC Ump]

NFHS SECTION 4 RUNNER IS OUT

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

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball... 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

Exactly my question. You have a runner who intentionally interferes with a throw but, because he has already scored, cannot be declared out.

Any penalty has to be assessed on "another runner." But was there another runner who "could have been put out" or who "would have been played on?" R2 is safely on 3b and not, as far as we know, continuing to advance.

[Velho]

6 minutes ago, LC Ump said:

Any penalty has to be assessed on "another runner." But was there another runner who "could have been put out" or who "would have been played on?" R2 is safely on 3b and not, as far as we know, continuing to advance.

How I read it (and have seen it applied) is:

1) 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 1 does not apply, then...

2) If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out

In this case it seems 2) applies.

When the offense intentionally interferes the rule doesn't allow for umpire to "remove impact of the interference". Maybe there should be but there isn't (that I'm aware of). Similar (not but exact) happened in MLB 

 

[LC Ump]

I agree @Velho. Threw my question out there hoping to hear from others with more experience/knowledge who could confirm the thought process...and to be ready with a "By rule..." explanation to any coach with a question on a play like this. Thanks.

Thanks to @Scissorsfor sharing the original question, as well. I learned a lot.

[maven]

Quoting the rule is moot: the relevant provision starts, "IF a retired runner interferes..."

But R3 did not interfere. Interference requires hindrance with a play. There was no play, because no runner was trying to advance.

This isn't about R2's intent, it's about the fact that he's standing on 3B.

The OP bailed out bad play by the defense, and compounded it by dumping the opposing coach. 

As a general rule, the bar for retired/scored runner INT goes up when the defense misplays. R3 has to stay out of the way, but it sounds as if he accomplished that. F2 doesn't get to put him back in the way by throwing the ball at him.

This sounds like a big nothing to me. Kill it when R3 picks up the ball, admonish him, and play on.

JMHO

[noumpere]

I agree that "no play" = "no INT", but the OP has "since there could have possibly been a play at third." and I don't see what happened after R3 reflexively (I assume) caught the ball that hit him.

 

So, I think this could be either, pending further clarification.

[Velho]

22 minutes ago, maven said:

The OP bailed out bad play by the defense

Discussing (not arguing)...

Alternate scenario: R3, 2 outs. BR lines to RF who kicks it around and makes errant throw home. Balls comes near R3 (after scoring) who grabs and then drops it and A) BR advancing to 2B on the throw and is midway to 2B as R3 grabs ball, B) BR was relaxed on 1B and stays there, C) BR was relaxed on 1B advanced safely to 2B because R3 grabbed the ball.

If @maven I'm hearing your take right, you'd rule:

A) Play on. BR stays at 2B. Tell R3 'don't do that'.

B) Play on. BR stays at 1B. Tell R3 'don't do that'.

C) BR is out because R3 actions directly enabled BR to advance to 2B. Coach tells R3 'don't do that' in his own way  

 

[Scissors]

4 hours ago, maven said:

Quoting the rule is moot: the relevant provision starts, "IF a retired runner interferes..."

But R3 did not interfere. Interference requires hindrance with a play. There was no play, because no runner was trying to advance.

This isn't about R2's intent, it's about the fact that he's standing on 3B.

The OP bailed out bad play by the defense, and compounded it by dumping the opposing coach. 

As a general rule, the bar for retired/scored runner INT goes up when the defense misplays. R3 has to stay out of the way, but it sounds as if he accomplished that. F2 doesn't get to put him back in the way by throwing the ball at him.

This sounds like a big nothing to me. Kill it when R3 picks up the ball, admonish him, and play on.

JMHO

Maven, I appreciate your insight but to say I "compounded it by dumping the opposing coach" is an unnecessary statement. He immediately came out screaming and got right up in my face spewing expletives towards me and the opposing team and had to be restrained by my partner after I ejected him. While I disagree with your judgement on this play and that's ok, there's no need to attack my character.

 

 

[Scissors]

4 hours ago, maven said:

The OP bailed out bad play by the defense

By this logic we shouldn't call obstruction on a runner that gets in a pickle because of bad baserunning.

[maven]

4 hours ago, Velho said:

Discussing (not arguing)...

Alternate scenario: R3, 2 outs. BR lines to RF who kicks it around and makes errant throw home. Balls comes near R3 (after scoring) who grabs and then drops it and A) BR advancing to 2B on the throw and is midway to 2B as R3 grabs ball, B) BR was relaxed on 1B and stays there, C) BR was relaxed on 1B advanced safely to 2B because R3 grabbed the ball.

If @maven I'm hearing your take right, you'd rule:

A) Play on. BR stays at 2B. Tell R3 'don't do that'.

B) Play on. BR stays at 1B. Tell R3 'don't do that'.

C) BR is out because R3 actions directly enabled BR to advance to 2B. Coach tells R3 'don't do that' in his own way  

I'd have INT in A. With BR advancing, a play is possible on him, and R3 hindered that play.

I'd have nothing in C, because when R3 picked up the ball I'd kill it. BR would remain at 1B.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Scissors said:

While I disagree with your judgement on this play and that's ok, there's no need to attack my character.

1. It's not a question of judgment, it's a question of definitions. Without a possible play—and there's no possible play on a stationary runner at a base—there can't be hindrance and thus can't be INT. There's nothing to judge.
2. Either you don't know the meaning of 'attack' or the meaning of 'character'. Nothing I said was personal: it's not personal to say you were wrong.
3. If there's no INT call here, there's no coach screaming, so no ejection. Sure, once he comes out screaming there's no choice—I have no problem there. But having to eject makes a bad situation worse.

1 hour ago, Scissors said:

By this logic we shouldn't call obstruction on a runner that gets in a pickle because of bad baserunning.

That's correct: a runner who deviates into a fielder who is not between him and the base should not get an OBS call.

[LC Ump]

"It's not a question of judgment, it's a question of definitions. Without a possible play—and there's no possible play on a stationary runner at a base—there can't be hindrance and thus can't be INT. There's nothing to judge."

Thanks to @mavenfor bringing this up. While R3 in the OP intentionally caught a throw by F2 but as I'm imaging making a call on this play I'm thinking "Where's the play with which he interfered?"

Is it the intentional act of catching the ball that's against the rules or is it a play elsewhere that was prevented by that act?

The rule is clear that you need "another runner" who could have been put out or played on for interference.

I know I'm changing my take on this play from an earlier post, but then that's why I read what others contribute - to try to better understand the rules and their application.

 

[BigBlue4u]

Spirit and intent of the rule.  To me, that would be a definite "Don't do that again."  By definition, interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.   Was anyone trying to make a play?  Was anyone confused?  No and no.  Spirit and intent of the rule!