Illegal to run to first after striking out (with no DTS in effect)?

[McMike]

Last night, one of our Little League batters ran to first after a dropped third, despite a runner on first and no outs.  In the confusion and live ball, the runner on first stole second, while the catcher made the unnecessary play to first.  The umpire let the stolen base stand and reminded the batter he was out.

On the one hand, it's the catcher's fault for not knowing the situation.  On the other hand, the batter was running the bases even though he was out, which sounds like it is entering travesty territory.

What's the proper ruling?

Does intent matter (the batter certainly thought he was doing the right thing, the manager who was encouraging him, not so much perhaps)?

[Richvee]

Umpire should come up big in these situations with a loud vocal “ Batter’s out”. Maybe even repeated a few times. Regardless,  it’s on the defense to know what’s going on. 

[McMike]

8 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Umpire should come up big in these situations with a loud vocal “ Batter’s out”. Maybe even repeated a few times. Regardless,  it’s on the defense to know what’s going on. 

Thanks.  fwiw, lol the umpire was doing his best, but he had to compete with a lot of shouting from both dugouts.

[Velho]

21 minutes ago, McMike said:

the manager who was encouraging him, not so much perhaps)?

That's the insidious part and much harder to deal with. 

[beerguy55]

32 minutes ago, Velho said:

That's the insidious part and much harder to deal with. 

It may or may not be insidious.  A lot of times the coach doesn't know any better either.   If you can come up with an incredibly high degree of certainty that the coach is doing this on purpose, and colluding with his players to confuse the defense then MAYBE you have an infraction here, around poor sportsmanship...MAYBE...but even then I'd want something that goes well beyond "reasonable doubt" - something you'd be willing to bet your life on knowing the coach's intent.

A lot of coaches teach the kids to run no matter what, to get them into a habit...you see a dropped third strike...go...That's how I was taught...and that's what I taught the younger kids...in fact, I've seen coaches teach the kids to run on ANY third strike.   In all cases the other half of the teaching is "the umpire will tell you if you're out."   

It's part of keeping things simple at the beginner levels.   When you do that, you really only have to teach one player (your catcher) the full rule, so he knows when he doesn't need to throw to first.  Start simple, then graduate to the next step when they get that one.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, McMike said:

On the one hand, it's the catcher's fault for not knowing the situation.

That's the only hand

[McMike]

25 minutes ago, noumpere said:

That's the only hand

This makes me wonder: what if a batter gets called out on a play at first, clearly signaled out, and then runs towards second anyway.  The first baseman panics, and throws to second.  Meanwhile, another runner lurking on third, he heads to home.

Again, it's the fielder's fault for panicking.  But is there no liability on the batter for poor sportsmanship or making a travesty?  If not, then why don't runners do this more often?

[McMike]

59 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

It may or may not be insidious.  A lot of times the coach doesn't know any better either.   If you can come up with an incredibly high degree of certainty that the coach is doing this on purpose, and colluding with his players to confuse the defense then MAYBE you have an infraction here, around poor sportsmanship...MAYBE...but even then I'd want something that goes well beyond "reasonable doubt" - something you'd be willing to bet your life on knowing the coach's intent.

A lot of coaches teach the kids to run no matter what, to get them into a habit...you see a dropped third strike...go...That's how I was taught...and that's what I taught the younger kids...in fact, I've seen coaches teach the kids to run on ANY third strike.   In all cases the other half of the teaching is "the umpire will tell you if you're out."   

It's part of keeping things simple at the beginner levels.   When you do that, you really only have to teach one player (your catcher) the full rule, so he knows when he doesn't need to throw to first.  Start simple, then graduate to the next step when they get that one.

Indeed, proving intent would be difficult if not impossible.  However, in this case, the runner took off by mistake, and the Manager quickly realized we could get a steal out of it, and decided in the heat of the moment to offer some verbal encouragement.  No one knows that story for sure except the Manager and me, and I wasn't squealing.

[Mister B]

We were taught, "Batter's out! He's out! He's still out!" Your job is done. Now it's up to the defense to know the situation. 

I was U1 in a 13u game, R1 and R2 no outs, U3K B/R runs to first, R1 and R2 take off for the next base. F2 to F5 to F4 for outs 2 and 3. OHC came out steaming, claiming it wasn't fair. My partner looks at him and says, "Guess you got something to work on at the next practice."

[Richvee]

6 hours ago, McMike said:

Thanks.  fwiw, lol the umpire was doing his best, but he had to compete with a lot of shouting from both dugouts.

Been there, heard that. 😂

[The Man in Blue]

On 5/20/2022 at 1:58 PM, McMike said:

This makes me wonder: what if a batter gets called out on a play at first, clearly signaled out, and then runs towards second anyway.  The first baseman panics, and throws to second.  Meanwhile, another runner lurking on third, he heads to home.

Again, it's the fielder's fault for panicking.  But is there no liability on the batter for poor sportsmanship or making a travesty?  If not, then why don't runners do this more often?

The batter is given UK3 protection by rule (I don't necessarily like it, but it is there).  Running after being put out is very different and absolutely there is a penalty.  This is retired runner interference.  

I almost had a similar situation in a game yesterday.  Bases loaded and the batter hits a grounder to F6 who steps on second (I call "OUT AT SECOND!") and overthrows the attempt for the double play.  R3 and R2 both score.  The retired runner (the former R1) pops up from his slide and takes off for third base.  F3 recovers the ball and throws to third to "make the play."  The batter-runner does not advance past first base.

As the former R1 is continuing to advance, I am yelling (as are many other people) and pointing "He is OUT!  He is OUT!"  My eyes are on the runner on first base though.

Once the play dies, the defensive coach starts to come out.  I meet him at the line, smiling because I already know what he's going to ask.  I hear him out (short version: he was out and can't do that) and agree with him.  I explain we don't have any interference though because both runs scored on the overthrow (not the "play at third") AND the batter-runner didn't go anywhere.  I let him know that IF the batter-runner had advanced, we would be having a different conversation that would result in another out.  He was very happy with the explanation. 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

The batter is given UK3 protection by rule (I don't necessarily like it, but it is there).  Running after being put out is very different and absolutely there is a penalty.  This is retired runner interference.  

I almost had a similar situation in a game yesterday.  Bases loaded and the batter hits a grounder to F6 who steps on second (I call "OUT AT SECOND!") and overthrows the attempt for the double play.  R3 and R2 both score.  The retired runner (the former R1) pops up from his slide and takes off for third base.  F3 recovers the ball and throws to third to "make the play."  The batter-runner does not advance past first base.

As the former R1 is continuing to advance, I am yelling (as are many other people) and pointing "He is OUT!  He is OUT!"  My eyes are on the runner on first base though.

Once the play dies, the defensive coach starts to come out.  I meet him at the line, smiling because I already know what he's going to ask.  I hear him out (short version: he was out and can't do that) and agree with him.  I explain we don't have any interference though because both runs scored on the overthrow (not the "play at third") AND the batter-runner didn't go anywhere.  I let him know that IF the batter-runner had advanced, we would be having a different conversation that would result in another out.  He was very happy with the explanation. 

You might be correct in NCAA but in FED and OBR that act alone would not result in an out for INT. 

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

You might be correct in NCAA but in FED and OBR that act alone would not result in an out for INT. 

 

I'm going to ask for some help on this one ... I may be wrong, but I'm not agreeing based on what I am seeing/reading.

NCAA expressly forbids it.  OBR expressly allows it.  Fed does not address it directly, but it does not need addressed directly.  3 rules give us what we need.

I'll jump to something that seems to support you: The BRD takes the same position that it is NOT illegal in Fed.  The citation provided is case play 8.3.3i.  In this case play we have runners on when the batter is out on a fly ball, but continues to run and draws a throw that goes out of play.  The case play speaks to the base awards and casually states "B4 was out with the catch."

Neither this case play nor rules in 8-3-3 have any citation that provides a retired can just keep running.  I cannot see that as anything other than a deliberate attempt to interfere with a play.

As many of you know, I have a problem with umpiring from case plays when the rules say something very different.

So here are the rules that apply -- let me know if I miss something.

2-21-1

SECTION 21 INTERFERENCE — OFFENSIVE, UMPIRE, SPECTATOR

ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play; or

2-30-3

SECTION 30 RUN, RUNNERS, RETIRED RUNNERS

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.

8-4-2g

SECTION 4 RUNNER IS OUT

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

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). 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; or

So ... can you explain to me -- using rules, not "somebody said so" -- why a case is made to allow this?

We have a retired runner committing an act that confuses or hinders the defense from making a play.  Seems pretty cut and dry to me.  

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I'm going to ask for some help on this one ... I may be wrong, but I'm not agreeing based on what I am seeing/reading.

NCAA expressly forbids it.  OBR expressly allows it.  Fed does not address it directly, but it does not need addressed directly.  3 rules give us what we need.

I'll jump to something that seems to support you: The BRD takes the same position that it is NOT illegal in Fed.  The citation provided is case play 8.3.3i.  In this case play we have runners on when the batter is out on a fly ball, but continues to run and draws a throw that goes out of play.  The case play speaks to the base awards and casually states "B4 was out with the catch."

Neither this case play nor rules in 8-3-3 have any citation that provides a retired can just keep running.  I cannot see that as anything other than a deliberate attempt to interfere with a play.

As many of you know, I have a problem with umpiring from case plays when the rules say something very different.

So here are the rules that apply -- let me know if I miss something.

2-21-1

SECTION 21 INTERFERENCE — OFFENSIVE, UMPIRE, SPECTATOR

ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play; or

2-30-3

SECTION 30 RUN, RUNNERS, RETIRED RUNNERS

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.

8-4-2g

SECTION 4 RUNNER IS OUT

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

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). 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; or

So ... can you explain to me -- using rules, not "somebody said so" -- why a case is made to allow this?

We have a retired runner committing an act that confuses or hinders the defense from making a play.  Seems pretty cut and dry to me.  

Would you allow a retired runner in his slide to continue the slide legally and perhaps hinder the pivot man?

Would you allow a B-R to run out his pop fly just back and foul of 1B and while overrunning  being hit by a throw to double off R3 who drifted off 1B. 

Would you call a retired runner, R1 frozen between 1B and 2B on a line drive caught, out when he is hit by the throw to1B to appeal him?

The defense is obliged to know who is out and to throw around base runners other than a BR on a DTK. Some inequity can happen. NCAA seems to want to punish intent so that might be different. But intent can be argued and now with IR runners are being taught to keep going no matter what the call or number of outs.

[The Man in Blue]

31 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Would you allow a retired runner in his slide to continue the slide legally and perhaps hinder the pivot man?

Would you allow a B-R to run out his pop fly just back and foul of 1B and while overrunning  being hit by a throw to double off R3 who drifted off 1B. 

Would you call a retired runner, R1 frozen between 1B and 2B on a line drive caught, out when he is hit by the throw to1B to appeal him?

The defense is obliged to know who is out and to throw around base runners other than a BR on a DTK. Some inequity can happen. NCAA seems to want to punish intent so that might be different. But intent can be argued and now with IR runners are being taught to keep going no matter what the call or number of outs.

 

1) Once he hinders the pivot man, assuming the pivot man is making a play, I have interference.

2) Unless I saw something deliberate, I have nothing.

3) R1 frozen between first and second is not retired.

The flaw in your scenarios is that you are talking about runners/retired runners IN a play within the seconds or fractions of a second when their status changed.

I do not disagree with you on the "defense should know" stance.  I fully agree with that.  I am also OK with the UK3 exception because the out is occurring behind the batter and it is a routine situation.

I am talking about runners who were clearly out, clearly knew they were out, and chose to "stay in the game".  Big difference.  If you are going to allow this, why would any retired runner ever walk off the field?  At what point do you make them leave the field?  Can they stay on the base for the next pitch?  Until the ball is hit into play?  Or are we reverting to T-ball rules where we just let everybody run the bases all the way to home regardless?

This could possibly be the difference though ... right now I primarily call youth baseball using NFHS.  I know everybody else on here only calls pros and I agree when they are getting paid, they should know (hence why OBR expressly allows it while NCAA expressly forbids it).  When it comes to youth baseball though?  No.  So I am going to protect the integrity of the game I call.  There is no IR in most college games and below, so there is no reason to improperly teach retired runners to stay in the game.

... and you still haven't provided any rule citations to allow this.

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

1) Once he hinders the pivot man, assuming the pivot man is making a play, I have interference.

2) Unless I saw something deliberate, I have nothing.

3) R1 frozen between first and second is not retired.

The flaw in your scenarios is that you are talking about runners/retired runners IN a play within the seconds or fractions of a second when their status changed.

I do not disagree with you on the "defense should know" stance.  I fully agree with that.  I am also OK with the UK3 exception because the out is occurring behind the batter and it is a routine situation.

I am talking about runners who were clearly out, clearly knew they were out, and chose to "stay in the game".  Big difference.  If you are going to allow this, why would any retired runner ever walk off the field?  At what point do you make them leave the field?  Can they stay on the base for the next pitch?  Until the ball is hit into play?  Or are we reverting to T-ball rules where we just let everybody run the bases all the way to home regardless?

This could possibly be the difference though ... right now I primarily call youth baseball using NFHS.  I know everybody else on here only calls pros and I agree when they are getting paid, they should know (hence why OBR expressly allows it while NCAA expressly forbids it).  When it comes to youth baseball though?  No.  So I am going to protect the integrity of the game I call.  There is no IR in most college games and below, so there is no reason to improperly teach retired runners to stay in the game.

... and you still haven't provided any rule citations to allow this.

And their are none to not allow this whatever this is. 

1. Are you calling every DP breakup slide retired runner interference, pre or post MLB rule changes?

3. I misspoke. Ball is short hopped and F6 steps on 2B to get BR. Frozen retired R1 gets hit by the throw..

[Dottelife]

Had this 5 years ago in a 14u tournament last inning Hat at bat. Runners at first and second no outs. Dropped strike 3 PU says batters out but no one could hear him because parents and coaches are screaming run. Only first base coach knows he is out because first is occupied but runners at first and second are confused so they stand 2 steps off the base. Throw to first tags runner, throws to second to tag other runner. I bang them both out and say ballgame. Coach went crazy and my partner says as we are walking off field it’s not my job to teach your parents and players the rules of the game. HC finds the UIC who tells him the same thing we said. No intent to deceive just horrible coaching. 

[The Man in Blue]

9 hours ago, Jimurray said:

And their are none to not allow this whatever this is. 

1. Are you calling every DP breakup slide retired runner interference, pre or post MLB rule changes?

3. I misspoke. Ball is short hopped and F6 steps on 2B to get BR. Frozen retired R1 gets hit by the throw..

There are in Fed and I just cited them.  It amazes me when people want to ignore clearly written rules in lieu of a (possible) misinterpretation of a case play unrelated to the actual rule (8-3-3 has to do with base awards, not interference) … is it because it makes the job easier?

I think we are talking about very different things that can be classified together at a high level.  Dolphins and kangaroos are both mammals.

I am not talking about a retired runner completing an action started as a runner (i.e., a slide or a BR running on a UK3).  I am talking about a retired runner whose action is completed but chooses to continue to play anyway.

To your theoreticals though: A closer look at the sliding runner can reveal a case where I would call interference.  If the runner is put out well in advance and has enough time to realize this and stop, no, I am not going to allow him to grant him him immunity on a slide that shouldn’t be happening.  He is not entitled to continue to advance and he is certainly not entitled to continue to try to break up a double play.  In fact, I am going to start considering malicious contact under the right (wrong) circumstances since the sole purpose was to make contact with the fielder making a play.

A frozen retired runner who doesn’t have a chance to react (and I am being generous since many kids react slowly), no I’m not penalizing him.  I am looking for movement — if he was truly frozen and didn’t move at all, I’m not penalizing him. If he is making an attempt to get out of the way, I’m not penalizing him.  If he is clearly out and then decides “I’m running anyway”, then we need to have a talk.

As I also said, I’m not talking MLB.  OBR has a rule that expressly allows this, so there is no discussion to be had there.

I’ll add in one more factor that you haven’t brought up … no, I don’t think the runner should immediately stop play since there is a chance a fielder can drop the ball.  There is some lag time in there that must be granted.  Again, I am not talking about immediate or continuing action.  I am talking about a player who ignores his retirement and “starts a new action” (for lack of better terminology).

[ArchAngel72]

Been there done this..

 

I will say Strike 3 or "3" and then if I see the batter take off I shout "batter is out" 2 times.

If the catcher at that point still makes a play to 1st that's on him imho and this has been a learning/teaching moment for him.

As far as the R1 its a passed ball or dropped ball if he steals its live and he/she is at their own peril.

 

 

[Jimurray]

8 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

There are in Fed and I just cited them.  It amazes me when people want to ignore clearly written rules in lieu of a (possible) misinterpretation of a case play unrelated to the actual rule (8-3-3 has to do with base awards, not interference) … is it because it makes the job easier?

I think we are talking about very different things that can be classified together at a high level.  Dolphins and kangaroos are both mammals.

I am not talking about a retired runner completing an action started as a runner (i.e., a slide or a BR running on a UK3).  I am talking about a retired runner whose action is completed but chooses to continue to play anyway.

To your theoreticals though: A closer look at the sliding runner can reveal a case where I would call interference.  If the runner is put out well in advance and has enough time to realize this and stop, no, I am not going to allow him to grant him him immunity on a slide that shouldn’t be happening.  He is not entitled to continue to advance and he is certainly not entitled to continue to try to break up a double play.  In fact, I am going to start considering malicious contact under the right (wrong) circumstances since the sole purpose was to make contact with the fielder making a play.

A frozen retired runner who doesn’t have a chance to react (and I am being generous since many kids react slowly), no I’m not penalizing him.  I am looking for movement — if he was truly frozen and didn’t move at all, I’m not penalizing him. If he is making an attempt to get out of the way, I’m not penalizing him.  If he is clearly out and then decides “I’m running anyway”, then we need to have a talk.

As I also said, I’m not talking MLB.  OBR has a rule that expressly allows this, so there is no discussion to be had there.

I’ll add in one more factor that you haven’t brought up … no, I don’t think the runner should immediately stop play since there is a chance a fielder can drop the ball.  There is some lag time in there that must be granted.  Again, I am not talking about immediate or continuing action.  I am talking about a player who ignores his retirement and “starts a new action” (for lack of better terminology).

Before OBR added the force play slide rule Wendelstedt said the reason a retired runner could continue to slide and break up the DP was the “continue to advance” clause. No runner in any OBR code was ever called for retired runner INT when they broke up the DP with a bona fide slide. 

[The Man in Blue]

Again, not talking about OBR or a bonafide slide … and what you are looking for is not the FPSR.  Here is the OBR citation that somewhat allows this.  Note, it does not say that interference cannot be called.  

[beerguy55]

On 5/23/2022 at 7:47 AM, The Man in Blue said:

Again, not talking about OBR or a bonafide slide … and what you are looking for is not the FPSR.  Here is the OBR citation that somewhat allows this.  Note, it does not say that interference cannot be called.  

My interpretation of this is that simply continuing to run the bases - that act alone - is not INT.   But if said retired runner, who is simply continuing to run the bases - perhaps in ignorant bliss not knowing he's out -  impedes the defense in any way the umpire could rule INT.  That is, the excuse that he's just running the bases should protect the retired runner insofar that he doesn't get in the way of a play.   If the defense tries to make a play on him, that's on them.  If he impedes a play on another runner, that's on him.

[Jimurray]

5 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

My interpretation of this is that simply continuing to run the bases - that act alone - is not INT.   But if said retired runner, who is simply continuing to run the bases - perhaps in ignorant bliss not knowing he's out -  impedes the defense in any way the umpire could rule INT.  That is, the excuse that he's just running the bases should protect the retired runner insofar that he doesn't get in the way of a play.   If the defense tries to make a play on him, that's on them.  If he impedes a play on another runner, that's on him.

A retired runner must do something intentional to be guilty of INT when still running the bases "normally". As stated earlier OBR allows a retired runner to slide and take out the pivot man. Wendelstedt allows a retired runner to stay in the 1B - 2B basepath and not be guilty of INT if hit with a throw. Wendelstedt allows a B-R to overrun 1B after a foul popup is caught and a throw toward 3B to double off an R3 that hits the B-R would not be INT. 

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

My interpretation of this is that simply continuing to run the bases - that act alone - is not INT.   But if said retired runner, who is simply continuing to run the bases - perhaps in ignorant bliss not knowing he's out -  impedes the defense in any way the umpire could rule INT.  That is, the excuse that he's just running the bases should protect the retired runner insofar that he doesn't get in the way of a play.   If the defense tries to make a play on him, that's on them.  If he impedes a play on another runner, that's on him.

 

I agree with that.  The runner simply running, if nobody pays any mind to him, is not a punishable offense. Of course, if he commits a secondary act, one that is clearly interference -- with a throw, play, fielder taking a throw, etc. -- this is a separate act and then he is most certainly guilty of a punishable offense.

It is the re-inserting of himself into play -- an additional act -- that I believe makes the cases we are talking about (NOT the broken record of cases @Jimurray keeps reiterating) interference. 

The question becomes whether the defense's actions can make it a punishable act or not.  I would contend, as provided by rule citation, the answer is yes.  I believe that if a retired runner committing a second act after his retirement triggers the defense to play on him, then we need to be conscious as to whether that act "obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."  I do not even understand how you can make the argument that "the defense should know" and then ignore the actual rules.  I agree, the defense should know ... and the retired runner choosing to re-insert himself into play AND drawing a play on him instead of a live runner is a black and white textbook example of "obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." 

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

A retired runner must do something intentional to be guilty of INT when still running the bases "normally". As stated earlier OBR allows a retired runner to slide and take out the pivot man. Wendelstedt allows a retired runner to stay in the 1B - 2B basepath and not be guilty of INT if hit with a throw. Wendelstedt allows a B-R to overrun 1B after a foul popup is caught and a throw toward 3B to double off an R3 that hits the B-R would not be INT. 

 

No, OBR does not allow "a retired runner to slide and take out the pivot man."

 Rule 6.01(j)

Sliding to Bases on Double Play Attempts

If a runner does not engage in a bona fide slide, and initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play, he should be called for interference under this Rule 6.01.

A “bona fide slide” for purposes of Rule 6.01 occurs when the runner:

(1)  begins his slide (i.e., makes contact with the ground) before reaching the base;

(2)  is able and attempts to reach the base with his hand or foot;

(3)  is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home plate) after completion of the slide; and

(4)  slides within reach of the base without changing his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder.

The Wendelstadt interps are based in a very sound concept that is commonly accepted: the runner or batter-runner was doing what they were supposed to be doing and did not deviate or do anything illegal once they became retired runners.  They were just the victim of being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

[Jimurray]

16 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

No, OBR does not allow "a retired runner to slide and take out the pivot man."

 Rule 6.01(j)

Sliding to Bases on Double Play Attempts

If a runner does not engage in a bona fide slide, and initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play, he should be called for interference under this Rule 6.01.

A “bona fide slide” for purposes of Rule 6.01 occurs when the runner:

(1)  begins his slide (i.e., makes contact with the ground) before reaching the base;

(2)  is able and attempts to reach the base with his hand or foot;

(3)  is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home plate) after completion of the slide; and

(4)  slides within reach of the base without changing his pathway for the purpose of initiating contact with a fielder.

The Wendelstadt interps are based in a very sound concept that is commonly accepted: the runner or batter-runner was doing what they were supposed to be doing and did not deviate or do anything illegal once they became retired runners.  They were just the victim of being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

I didn't think I had to specify but if the retired runner slides legally and hinders the pivot man do you have INT?