Retired Runner Continues Running the Bases - Defense Plays on Retired Runner

[johnnyg08]

On 3/10/2024 at 11:12 AM, The Man in Blue said:

 

In this case play, I agree.  In the OP, I do not.  This echoes what I said . . . if there was NOBODY on first, the "NORMAL" is for the BR to round first and possibly keep going.  With R1, the "NORMAL" is not to run past the guy standing on the base.

EDIT . . . hang on a second . . . I just realized my posts have been referring to the case play (fly out to the outfield), not the situation presented by @johnnyg08 (ground ball on the infield).  Apologies! 

 

To the actual OP, then . . . I'm taking a look at the play and what I, or my partner, did.  Was the force out close?  If it was not close, the runner is not getting the benefit of doubt.  If I or my partner was loud and vehement, the runner is not getting the benefit of doubt.  If the play was a banger or the call was unclear, OK, the runner may be making an honest mistake. 

I have had that happen more than once.  As the base umpire, you usually aren't following that "lead" retired runner since you are turning on the double play.  As the plate umpire, you are also not necessarily following that lead runner, as you are watching for the foot pull at 1B.  Once it is evident there is no pull, what I have done in the past, is pick up that "lead" retired runner and start pointing and emphasizing that we had him out.  I am trying to do that before the shenanigans can start.  Even if the players don't hear it, it is enough the coaches know and then they can start their usual air traffic controller routine.

Second edit: On the bases, when I have a potential double play, I try to give a loud and clear "OUT AT ____" (insert base there) so my out call is clear and we can try to avoid these things.

 

Some good points regarding mechanics. 

With that said...as described, do you have anything on this play (the OP)?

You can assume that as far as the players who knew for 100% that he was out at 2B would be R1, F4 & F6. Then everyone else on the field & in the stands would know via inference. Which is how it's done 99.99999% of the time...at least in my part of the country.  

[johnnyg08]

NFHS 8-4-2g

I 

 

[johnnyg08]

Another point to consider the flaw calling an out here. (OP)

Batted ball to F3, F3 puts out the BR and attempts a play at home on R3...BR is still running to first base and the throw from F3 hits the BR. Not retired runner interference because he's running the bases. 

 

[Velho]

40 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Batted ball to F3, F3 puts out the BR and attempts a play at home on R3...BR is still running to first base and the throw from F3 hits the BR. Not retired runner interference because he's running the bases. 

And not RLI which only applies on throw to 1B. We had a MLB(?) example within the last few years.

[johnnyg08]

14 minutes ago, Velho said:

And not RLI which only applies on throw to 1B. We had a MLB(?) example within the last few years.

Yes. Absolutely true. It doesn't apply "in reverse" 

[The Man in Blue]

On 3/10/2024 at 11:41 AM, johnnyg08 said:

With that said...as described, do you have anything on this play (the OP)?

 

Sorry, I missed the direct question.

HTBT.  Not enough information to make a determination.  I can see it going either way.

[johnnyg08]

53 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Sorry, I missed the direct question.

HTBT.  Not enough information to make a determination.  I can see it going either way.

What parts do you think are missing from the OP? 

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

What parts do you think are missing from the OP? 

Any context.

Was there reason for the runner to have heard or not have heard he was out?  Was there reason he may not have known?  What was said or done by the officials as this unfolded?

[Jimurray]

27 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Any context.

Was there reason for the runner to have heard or not have heard he was out?  Was there reason he may not have known?  What was said or done by the officials as this unfolded?

FED and, currently,  Wendelstedt don't need any context other than a no sht fly ball out or an out call by an ump. Given those the defense is responsible to know who is out. Earlier NCAA and OBR opinions would have you judge intent to draw a play by the runner who knew he was out.

[johnnyg08]

8 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Any context.

Was there reason for the runner to have heard or not have heard he was out?  Was there reason he may not have known?  What was said or done by the officials as this unfolded?

R1 was forced out at 2b on the front end of a DP attempt. I think it's safe to say that the middle infielders and R1 knew he was out...and everyone else for that matter as is the case on most DP balls. There was probably a ten minute conversation after R1 was tagged "out" at home for the 2nd time with coaches from both teams on the field...that part was messy. 

 

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

R1 was forced out at 2b on the front end of a DP attempt. I think it's safe to say that the middle infielders and R1 knew he was out...and everyone else for that matter as is the case on most DP balls. There was probably a ten minute conversation after R1 was tagged "out" at home for the 2nd time with coaches from both teams on the field...that part was messy. 

 

 

Then I think it is safe to say we have an interference call.  The two big erections on this forum that I do not understand: abandonment and "should have known."

This is going to sound loosey-goosey, but "should have known" applies until it doesn't.  Everybody should have known . . . until the fielder who has watching for a ball being thrown at him at 70+ mph turned his back to the field, ran the ball down, and turned to immediately see a lead runner on the move.  If he turned his back to the field and was not seeing what was happening, how can you tell me he should have known what occurred?  Perhaps the middle infielder didn't get the bag and the umpire ruled the runner safe or that the middle infielder was bobbling the ball when he touched the bag.  I am not requiring a player - particularly a YOUTH player - who is watching a ball being thrown at him to be aware of anything other than focusing on catching the ball/protecting himself.

IFF is different as it is a situational awareness, not an environmental awareness of evolving events.

Again, why are we granting the offense license to be stupid (and blatantly violate rules) when holding the defense to a mythical higher standard?

(You can make the argument for the runner IF the umpire(s) were not loud, clear and consistent, but I hold that it is not as solid of an argument.)  

[The Man in Blue]

12 hours ago, Jimurray said:

FED and, currently,  Wendelstedt don't need any context other than a no sht fly ball out or an out call by an ump. Given those the defense is responsible to know who is out. Earlier NCAA and OBR opinions would have you judge intent to draw a play by the runner who knew he was out.

Not disagreeing, but see my points in my previous response.  What if the ball was not under control/bobbled when the fielder touched the bag?  What if he missed the bag?  Are we going to bring the runner back, since the defense "knew" the runner was out and didn't play on him?

While I don't like having to judge intent (just leads to arguments), I like the intent provision as it does provide some allowance for "dumb $#!+ happens sometimes."  I like that better as we can apply "would a reasonable person have known?" instead of "should have known."  

[johnnyg08]

Except for the little nugget that states that simply continuing to run the bases after being retired can not be interference. How do we explain that away? 

[Velho]

6 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Except for the little nugget that states that simply continuing to run the bases after being retired can not be interference. How do we explain that away? 

I missed where we have that language. I see the "shall not by that act alone be considered" interference but those aren't equivalent.

Edit (just in case): zero snark in the above. Looking for the cite that I missed (if I did) in the thread.

[The Man in Blue]

That is how.  The act in and of itself is not interference.  That does not mean it is NEVER interference.  It means there can be instances that you deem the runner may have legitimately not known.  It means as you continue to scream “HE IS OUT!  HE IS OUT!” He is not interfering.

Continuing to run after that or doing it deliberately … you cannot justify by falling back on “but it says …”.  
 

No, sir.  

He is an illegal runner, sir.

He is out for sure, sir.

He can run no further, sir.

 

[Jimurray]

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

That is how.  The act in and of itself is not interference.  That does not mean it is NEVER interference.  It means there can be instances that you deem the runner may have legitimately not known.  It means as you continue to scream “HE IS OUT!  HE IS OUT!” He is not interfering.

Continuing to run after that or doing it deliberately … you cannot justify by falling back on “but it says …”.  
 

No, sir.  

He is an illegal runner, sir.

He is out for sure, sir.

He can run no further, sir.

 

I would like to use intent (as evidenced by a smirk or such) to call INT. But continuing to run or slide after being out is allowed. In fact Wendelstedt said, before OBR codified DP slides, that "that act alone" of sliding and taking out the fielder when you were already out was allowed by that rule wording. They also allow a B-R to continue to run though 1B after a fly foul is caught and if hit by a throw, lets say from just beyond 1B to double up or get a tagging R3, there is no INT if the runner was running out the play normally or, as clarified with a change, running in one direction or the other that would be normal baserunning.

[johnnyg08]

Except here where the batted fly ball was caught, he kept running, they played on him and threw the ball away.

 

[Velho]

11 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Except here where the batted fly ball was caught, he kept running, they played on him and threw the ball away.

I still don't think that's blanket immunity.

I agree the rules raise the bar (not sure I'd call it high but it's not low. Somewhere above the waistline maybe?) but retired runner INT is still possible. Those case plays make it so, if they're a bit coy, they'll get away with it. That's all lI'm saying.

Don't make it your best call.

[johnnyg08]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

I still don't think that's blanket immunity.

I agree the rules raise the bar (not sure I'd call it high but it's not low. Somewhere above the waistline maybe?) but retired runner INT is still possible. Those case plays make it so, if they're a bit coy, they'll get away with it. That's all lI'm saying.

Don't make it your best call.

I'm not sure any of us are painting blanket immunity. That being said, I think the bar for retired runner interference when the retired runner is simply running the bases is a much higher bar than we are applying based upon the rules and relevant interpretations. 

Sure...but we definitely can't use the "he didn't know he was out" as a standard. 

This was a fly ball that was literally caught. There's no mention in the case play of it being a trouble ball. 

I'm unsure if the bar can get any lower. The defense has to have some liability here. 

[Velho]

44 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I'm not sure any of us are painting blanket immunity.

Got ya. That clarifies earlier statements that I'd read as not leaving room for further context:

On 3/7/2024 at 7:12 PM, noumpere said:

On 3/7/2024 at 4:27 PM, johnnyg08 said:

I can't find any rule support for calling a retired runner out who is played on again.

 

Correct.

 

46 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

The defense has to have some liability here.

Agreed.

 

Good discussion. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[The Man in Blue]

16 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I would like to use intent (as evidenced by a smirk or such) to call INT. But continuing to run or slide after being out is allowed. In fact Wendelstedt said, before OBR codified DP slides, that "that act alone" of sliding and taking out the fielder when you were already out was allowed by that rule wording. They also allow a B-R to continue to run though 1B after a fly foul is caught and if hit by a throw, lets say from just beyond 1B to double up or get a tagging R3, there is no INT if the runner was running out the play normally or, as clarified with a change, running in one direction or the other that would be normal baserunning.

 

This is one of those "dangerous use of language" areas.  It is not allowed.  There is NO rule that says this is NOT interference.  There is a rule that says there are conditions that must be considered (no, it does not spell those out), leaving it to the umpire's judgement to potentially not call it.  It is possible with stipulations, not allowed.

As @Velho said, there is no "blanket immunity."  An umpire MUST be aware of what is happening and what is leading up to the event.

The other piece of language you use, @Jimurray, is play normally.  I agree with that, though we are all going to have an interpretation of "what is normal."  Here is where I see the key in an umpire being aware. 

In the case play that @johnnyg08 posted, I disagree that the batter's actions were normal.  As I have said before, a runner passing a runner who is standing on a base is not normal.  Had there been no runner on first base, I would view the situation differently.  

 

EDIT: I posted this before seeing the last couple of posts clarifying that people are not arguing for blanket immunity.  I will try to redirect my conversation to the case play then, as I believe it is a terrible case play.

The outfielder is tracking a flyball for 250 feet at 100 feet up in the air, and coming downward at terminal velocity towards his face . . . do you expect him to check uniform numbers on a runner?  IMO, the impetus for "should have known" is not on that guy.  He catching and shooting at the first thing he sees moving.  That is normal play, IMO.  Therefore, if the retired runner has no good reason to still be running (namely, he passed the preceding runner on the base), I've got an interference call in the making.

[Jimurray]

13 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

This is one of those "dangerous use of language" areas.  It is not allowed.  There is NO rule that says this is NOT interference.  There is a rule that says there are conditions that must be considered (no, it does not spell those out), leaving it to the umpire's judgement to potentially not call it.  It is possible with stipulations, not allowed.

As @Velho said, there is no "blanket immunity."  An umpire MUST be aware of what is happening and what is leading up to the event.

The other piece of language you use, @Jimurray, is play normally.  I agree with that, though we are all going to have an interpretation of "what is normal."  Here is where I see the key in an umpire being aware. 

In the case play that @johnnyg08 posted, I disagree that the batter's actions were normal.  As I have said before, a runner passing a runner who is standing on a base is not normal.  Had there been no runner on first base, I would view the situation differently.  

Before MLB codified the DP slide the takeout slide was allowed at the forced base even when the slide was started after the out and with the intent of affecting the pivot man. Are you saying every one of those should have been INT?

[johnnyg08]

Might it be safe to say that if that Case Play makes it legal, then could we imply that something less extreme, but also be legal? 

[The Man in Blue]

Hard slides at second base in MLB, I have no opinion and don't need to have an opinion.  I never called those games and we all know MLB does what MLB wants to do for the product, not the rules.

Case play "making it legal" is a very dangerous interpretation of what case plays are supposed to do.  This covers many of my numerous reasons for hating the citation of case plays.  They are wrong far too often for what they should be*.  They are admittedly used by orgs to circumvent fixing rules.  They are also too frequently used incorrectly by officials in place of actual rules.

At this point, all I have left to say on this topic is: If you are looking for reasons to simply allow this instead of actually arbitrating the situation (in which case it may be allowable or it may not), I hope I am not your partner when it goes sideways and you refuse to do anything about it.

 

*Just finished my state test, and here is another wrinkle in a case play we have been complaining about.  So a case play claims that a pitch hitting a sliding mitt in a batter's pocket IS a hit by pitch.  Yet, my state test just said that a pitch hitting a cap in a batter's pocket is NOT a hit by pitch.

[johnnyg08]

On 3/17/2024 at 5:15 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Hard slides at second base in MLB, I have no opinion and don't need to have an opinion.  I never called those games and we all know MLB does what MLB wants to do for the product, not the rules.

Case play "making it legal" is a very dangerous interpretation of what case plays are supposed to do.  This covers many of my numerous reasons for hating the citation of case plays.  They are wrong far too often for what they should be*.  They are admittedly used by orgs to circumvent fixing rules.  They are also too frequently used incorrectly by officials in place of actual rules.

At this point, all I have left to say on this topic is: If you are looking for reasons to simply allow this instead of actually arbitrating the situation (in which case it may be allowable or it may not), I hope I am not your partner when it goes sideways and you refuse to do anything about it.

 

*Just finished my state test, and here is another wrinkle in a case play we have been complaining about.  So a case play claims that a pitch hitting a sliding mitt in a batter's pocket IS a hit by pitch.  Yet, my state test just said that a pitch hitting a cap in a batter's pocket is NOT a hit by pitch.

Would you be willing to expand a bit more on how case plays & interpretations cause problems in making decisions? I'm not sure I'm understanding your perspective on this piece.