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

[johnnyg08]

I can't find any rule support for calling a retired runner out who is played on again. (Obviously, no matter what he can't be out twice) but to rephrase...additional penalties on the offense for the defense making a play on the retired runner again)

R1, gets forced out at 2B and there's an overthrow at 1B. Retired R1 keeps running and slides into home plate. The F2 receives the throw and tags R1 "out" again at home. 

There's a case play that's close...

 

[Jimurray]

47 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I can't find any rule support for calling a retired runner out who is played on again. (Obviously, no matter what he can't be out twice) but to rephrase...additional penalties on the offense for the defense making a play on the retired runner again)

R1, gets forced out at 2B and there's an overthrow at 1B. Retired R1 keeps running and slides into home plate. The F2 receives the throw and tags R1 "out" again at home. 

There's a case play that's close...

 

My 2011 BRD has a similar play to yours and uses 8.3.3.I to require the defense to know that the runner was already out in FED. Wendelstedt, last I knew, also requires the defense to know but the BRD's older cites from Thurston (NCAA) and Fitzpatrick (OBR) agree that the umpire has to judge if the hindrance was intentional or not. This happened to me one time and I ruled as FED does. The next at bat for that guy had some music but never got him. The offense wanted a warning but I judged the pitcher was just wild.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

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

 

Correct.

[The Man in Blue]

I would agree with the "defense should know" (here we go down that path again) IF there was no runner on first base.  However, in my opinion, the OF who made the catch is not stopping to check his line up card and verifying the uniform number to check which player is running from first base.  He knows a runner was on first and sees a runner running.  I have a hard time NOT calling something there if it causes a false play.

Why are we making a case to require the OF who is watching the ball and making a play to know Who is on first (and What's on second) but not requiring the batter to know he was out AS HE PASSES R1 STANDING ON THE BAG AND HIS BASE COACH?  (No, I am not making a case for passing as the batter is out, so please don't go down that road.)

Yeah . . . SMH.

[MadMax]

4 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

R1, gets forced out at 2B

Is this a case of a High School umpire (Pure ol’ Fed, ya whippersnapper) not calling R1 Out, and the kid (R1) doesn’t believe he’s Out? Or, was an Out call made, but he’s defiantly proceeding / continuing to run the bases? 

4 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

… there's an overthrow at 1B.

[pause]
 

Retired R1 keeps running and slides into home plate.

[pause] – This is where the situation falls apart for me. If R1 is called Out, he’s going to proceed to either the 3B dugout or 1B dugout. If 1BS, then I could see him potentially being confused with BR, who, after the overthrow, heads to 2B. That’s plausible. But if he’s headed towards 3BS… see, I can’t wrap my umpire head around it… if 2-man system, then PU is headed towards 3B until he observes his BU partner make an Out call at 2B, and then proceed back to plate. So as long as BU made that call, then R1 is “dead” to both umpires, PU especially. At best, PU judges overthrow as being still Live-&-In-Play, and he has to – I have to believe – he’s surprised by the defense all shouting at their fielder to throw it home. That PU has to try to determine what’s going on… who could they possibly be making a play on??… 

I like to think that in the 18-&-over games, this situation never happens. In younger environs, since kids are morons, okay… I’ll concede it could happen. However, in that same contextual environ, I have to say as an umpire, I’d be telling the F2 “he’s already Out, he’s already out”. I can’t stop the throw by the fielder, but surely I have that rapport with catchers to simply state the status of the Runner (retired). 

It’s similar to U3K with R1 and less than 2 Outs. Even though the retired Batter may dance around, and break for 1B, I will state “Batter is Out, Batter is Out”. I cannot stop a catcher from throwing it to 1B, but rarely does that ever happen, in situations like that. 

But back to the OP situation, barring any declaration by the PU of the Retired Runner’s status, then PU shouldn’t make any mechanic or signal at all. That isn’t a play upon a (valid) Runner, so doesn’t require a judgement. Can’t call INT, because he’s not “directly” affecting a/any play upon another (valid) Runner. 

I just do not see this happening as described  

 

[johnnyg08]

7 hours ago, MadMax said:

Is this a case of a High School umpire (Pure ol’ Fed, ya whippersnapper) not calling R1 Out, and the kid (R1) doesn’t believe he’s Out? Or, was an Out call made, but he’s defiantly proceeding / continuing to run the bases? 

[pause] – This is where the situation falls apart for me. If R1 is called Out, he’s going to proceed to either the 3B dugout or 1B dugout. If 1BS, then I could see him potentially being confused with BR, who, after the overthrow, heads to 2B. That’s plausible. But if he’s headed towards 3BS… see, I can’t wrap my umpire head around it… if 2-man system, then PU is headed towards 3B until he observes his BU partner make an Out call at 2B, and then proceed back to plate. So as long as BU made that call, then R1 is “dead” to both umpires, PU especially. At best, PU judges overthrow as being still Live-&-In-Play, and he has to – I have to believe – he’s surprised by the defense all shouting at their fielder to throw it home. That PU has to try to determine what’s going on… who could they possibly be making a play on??… 

I like to think that in the 18-&-over games, this situation never happens. In younger environs, since kids are morons, okay… I’ll concede it could happen. However, in that same contextual environ, I have to say as an umpire, I’d be telling the F2 “he’s already Out, he’s already out”. I can’t stop the throw by the fielder, but surely I have that rapport with catchers to simply state the status of the Runner (retired). 

It’s similar to U3K with R1 and less than 2 Outs. Even though the retired Batter may dance around, and break for 1B, I will state “Batter is Out, Batter is Out”. I cannot stop a catcher from throwing it to 1B, but rarely does that ever happen, in situations like that. 

But back to the OP situation, barring any declaration by the PU of the Retired Runner’s status, then PU shouldn’t make any mechanic or signal at all. That isn’t a play upon a (valid) Runner, so doesn’t require a judgement. Can’t call INT, because he’s not “directly” affecting a/any play upon another (valid) Runner. 

I just do not see this happening as described  

 

Thanks. While the details of my post are not precise, the premise/idea is not. I have a video, but I don't want to post it for a variety of reasons. (No, it's not my play) 

The crux of this discussion is...if a retired runner simply keeps running the bases and the defense again plays on the retired runner, is there any penalty on the offense? 

All of the reading I've done on this and I haven't found a case play or interp of any kind that supports calling an out anywhere else when the defense plays on an already retired runner. That's not what retired runner interference is. 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

The crux of this discussion is...if a retired runner simply keeps running the bases and the defense again plays on the retired runner, is there any penalty on the offense?

No penalty.  Discussed here several times (I think).

 

Should there be a penalty?  That's a different discussion.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

The crux of this discussion is...if a retired runner simply keeps running the bases and the defense again plays on the retired runner, is there any penalty on the offense?

No penalty.  Discussed here several times (I think).

😈 warning

Let's stress test the statement "no penalty" by extending the OP to the extreme to see if there could ever be INT...

If it was judged* the act of continuing to the retired runner was intentional to deceive or confuse the defense, wouldn't you grab INT?

Maybe we semantically say that's "normal interference" and not "retired runners interference" but let's not let anyone reading this thread in the future think retired runner can never be called out for INT.

Point being, I think the retired runner interference exception gives the retired runner the benefit of the doubt that they were confused and not willingly continuing to run. Could the rule be written better to clarify this and where there line is? Of course. Add it to the list of changes.

* Extreme example : younger kid thinking it's funny to keep going, laughing, and telling the defense to "come get me".

[Jimurray]

52 minutes ago, Velho said:

 

Let's stress test the statement "no penalty" by extending the OP to the extreme to see if there could ever be INT...If it was judged* the act of continuing to the retired runner was intentional to deceive or confuse the defense, wouldn't you grab INT?

 

Thurston in 1990 and Fitzpatrick in 2000 would agree with you but I think the current thinking is that the defense is required to know who is out. But if that R1 put out at 2B gets into a rundown or rounds 3B with a smirk on his face and you call nothing you might as well issue HBP warnings right then.

[beerguy55]

Since you are only out by judgment* I've always assumed the rules give the benefit of the doubt to the runner who either does not know (or is not sure of) the umpire's judgment, or for those cases where maybe an umpire changes his mind about said judgment.

If the runner has simply continued running the bases then things are easy to correct...he keeps his base if he wasn't out and he just leaves the field if he was.  But if he were to leave the field, that's a bell that can't be unrung.

The rules, particularly abandonment, incentivize the "retired" runners to stay on and around the bases.

This leaves the defense in a conundrum from time to time, especially if they are left guessing to whether or not the out they believe/"know" has been completed has been judged the same by the umpire.

So, even on a very loudly declared IFF, a B/R can still run...even though they have no reason to run - they're either out or it's foul....unless the umpire(s) determine it wasn't catchable with "ordinary effort" and change their mind.......

 

*I'm open to being corrected here, but I can't think of a situation where umpire judgment is not involved in calling a player out, even indirectly (ie. by rule you're out if the batted ball is caught...if the umpire judges it was caught)

[JSam21]

A runner continuing to advance or retreat after being retired, in and of itself, is not considered an attempt to confuse the defense. 

 

[BigBlue4u]

8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Thanks. While the details of my post are not precise, the premise/idea is not. I have a video, but I don't want to post it for a variety of reasons. (No, it's not my play) 

The crux of this discussion is...if a retired runner simply keeps running the bases and the defense again plays on the retired runner, is there any penalty on the offense? 

All of the reading I've done on this and I haven't found a case play or interp of any kind that supports calling an out anywhere else when the defense plays on an already retired runner. That's not what retired runner interference is. 

My 2 cents:  The thinking by the rules makers may be to take the burden of intent away from the umpires. I have seen situations like this a few times in my career, but to be honest, I couldn't read intent because my eyes needed to be elsewhere on the field. 

[MadMax]

Coach assistance and Passing are two such infractions that I can see occurring, the Runner (or BR) is ruled Out, and either doesn’t realize it and/or doesn’t hear/see an Umpire call/signal him Out. In both, the ball remains Live and in play. 

Thus, if that (now Retired) Runner continues to advance, and the defense attempts a play on him, the Umpire(s) should be aware of his status, and not render an Out or Safe call upon him. Of course, that running may influence the defense to make a play on him. An extreme but realistic example would be R1 / R2, hit to the outfield, and on the throw in for a play upon R2 at the plate, the 3BC physically assists (either holds up R1, or as the ball gets away from F2 at the plate, propels R1 towards the plate) R1. Not recognizing he is out, R1 tries for the plate, and F2 secured the ball so as to make a play upon him. All this time, BR is likely at 2B, and possibly going for 3B. 

<rhetorical> Is this INT? I mean, the actions of a retired R1 (for Coach assist) are influencing (could you imply hindering?) the defense in not making a play on BR… aren’t they? </rhetorical> 

Again, I have great difficulty in picturing the OP situation happening in that manner. 

[Jimurray]

16 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Coach assistance and Passing are two such infractions that I can see occurring, the Runner (or BR) is ruled Out, and either doesn’t realize it and/or doesn’t hear/see an Umpire call/signal him Out. In both, the ball remains Live and in play. 

Thus, if that (now Retired) Runner continues to advance, and the defense attempts a play on him, the Umpire(s) should be aware of his status, and not render an Out or Safe call upon him. Of course, that running may influence the defense to make a play on him. An extreme but realistic example would be R1 / R2, hit to the outfield, and on the throw in for a play upon R2 at the plate, the 3BC physically assists (either holds up R1, or as the ball gets away from F2 at the plate, propels R1 towards the plate) R1. Not recognizing he is out, R1 tries for the plate, and F2 secured the ball so as to make a play upon him. All this time, BR is likely at 2B, and possibly going for 3B. 

<rhetorical> Is this INT? I mean, the actions of a retired R1 (for Coach assist) are influencing (could you imply hindering?) the defense in not making a play on BR… aren’t they? </rhetorical> 

Again, I have great difficulty in picturing the OP situation happening in that manner. 

There are two most likely sits. The FED caseplay where the B-R is mistaken for R1 tagging up. Possibly innocently running his fly ball hard. Or an R1 knowing he was out at 2B or knowing the out call was incorrect continuing to run on an overthrow. The 'by that act alone" wording seems to allow you to attach a judgment of intent except for FED. I believe the last Wendelstedt I read would not allow that judgement. You are arguing that the sit is moot so we don't have to rule on it. The sit in some respects has happened in games.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Possibly innocently running his fly ball hard. Or an R1 knowing he was out at 2B or knowing the out call was incorrect continuing to run on an overthrow.

 Of course, because the batter-runner should attempt to reach base safely and then inform the umpire that his call was in error 🤣

[MadMax]

Are we reading the same situation / play?? 

52 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

You are arguing that the sit is moot so we don't have to rule on it. The sit in some respects has happened in games.

The play (caseplay) you postulated, and the two I proposed make more realistic sense than the OP. I am not calling @johnnyg08 a liar; however, without seeing the actual play, and all the components involved (average age level? # of umpires? Sanctioned game or scrimmage? Etc. ), I’m having an exceptional difficulty in picturing this play happening… that an R1, having been deemed Out (by Force) at 2B, runs (at least 60, supposedly 90) feet, then turns left and heads another (at least 60, supposedly 90) feet to home plate at speed so as to score??? 

Show me the game where this has happened. Until then, Nope, sorry, not buying it. I’m not even going to treat it as a mental exercise. Because, as soon as you take one of these fantastical plays and try to find the “ideal judgement / ruling” about it with fervor and focus, you get guys inspired to go hunting for it. 

Soon, everything that moves becomes the mythical white buffalo. 🎯 

 

[johnnyg08]

11 hours ago, MadMax said:

Are we reading the same situation / play?? 

The play (caseplay) you postulated, and the two I proposed make more realistic sense than the OP. I am not calling @johnnyg08 a liar; however, without seeing the actual play, and all the components involved (average age level? # of umpires? Sanctioned game or scrimmage? Etc. ), I’m having an exceptional difficulty in picturing this play happening… that an R1, having been deemed Out (by Force) at 2B, runs (at least 60, supposedly 90) feet, then turns left and heads another (at least 60, supposedly 90) feet to home plate at speed so as to score??? 

Show me the game where this has happened. Until then, Nope, sorry, not buying it. I’m not even going to treat it as a mental exercise. Because, as soon as you take one of these fantastical plays and try to find the “ideal judgement / ruling” about it with fervor and focus, you get guys inspired to go hunting for it. 

Soon, everything that moves becomes the mythical white buffalo. 🎯 

 

It's real my friend. And it occurred in a HS varsity game, postseason. My word is the best you'll get. You can look at every one of my 8,100 + posts and you will see that I don't do TWPs...or (Third World Plays) 

Again, for reasons, I'm not going to post the video. After reviewing it again, my description of the play is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion. 

R1 was forced out at 2B and upon overthrow was played on again by the defense at home plate. He was "tagged out" 

Number of umpires: two for sure...maybe three. I can't remember from the video. 

Number of umpires: three

[Jimurray]

8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

 

R1 was forced out at 2B and upon overthrow was played on again by the defense at home plate. He was "tagged out" 

This is similar to the play that happened to me. R1, out at 2B, rounded 3B and headed home. Seems like a coached or word of mouth deke. How did they rule in your post season game. 

[The Man in Blue]

20 hours ago, JSam21 said:

A runner continuing to advance or retreat after being retired, in and of itself, is not considered an attempt to confuse the defense. 

 

This is why I do not have an issue with NO R1 and this happening.  With nobody on first, it is natural for a BR to round and keep going after flying out. (With some realistic limitations … by the time he hits second or encounters another runner, he should know he is out.  I’m not granting him any grace if he keeps going beyond that point.)

However, with a runner on, it is NOT natural for the BR to pass up the runner standing on the bag.  The act of running in and of itself was not interference, the act of knowingly passing up the runner was indicative of other intent.  The situation can also affect that.

 

I am also still REALLY struggling with the illogical approach of the “defense should know” but the offense is absolved.  BS.

[JSam21]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

This is why I do not have an issue with NO R1 and this happening.  With nobody on first, it is natural for a BR to round and keep going after flying out. (With some realistic limitations … by the time he hits second or encounters another runner, he should know he is out.  I’m not granting him any grace if he keeps going beyond that point.)

However, with a runner on, it is NOT natural for the BR to pass up the runner standing on the bag.  The act of running in and of itself was not interference, the act of knowingly passing up the runner was indicative of other intent.  The situation can also affect that.

 

I am also still REALLY struggling with the illogical approach of the “defense should know” but the offense is absolved.  BS.

Would that runner who passed another runner, be advancing or retreating in a legal manner?

[johnnyg08]

JEA Interpretation: 

 

[Jimurray]

6 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

JEA Interpretation: 

 

That's not an interp. It's the actual rule wording from the OBR at that time. It's still in the book with the "caseplay" revised to a comment and the comment revised to include return. If someone has a WUM they might find their interp which if I remember correctly requires the defense to know who is out, which is a change to the earlier opinions of Thurston and Fitzpatrick.

[johnnyg08]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

That's not an interp. It's the actual rule wording from the OBR at that time. It's still in the book with the "caseplay" revised to a comment and the comment revised to include return. If someone has a WUM they might find their interp which if I remember correctly requires the defense to know who is out, which is a change to the earlier opinions of Thurston and Fitzpatrick.

Yep...that's what I meant. Thanks for noticing that. 

Here's a case play (reference play) from the WUM: 

R1, R2, no out, 1-2 count. The batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop, who fields the ball to the third baseman, covering third. R2 is retired on the force play, and then the third baseman throws across the infield to first base. The throw is in the dirt, and just gets by the first baseman. R2, believing he was called safe, scrambles to his feet. Seeing the ball get by the first baseman, R2 begins running home. The first baseman throws the ball to the plate and attempt to retire R2, not knowing he had already been put out. R1 advances to third on the play. After all play stops, the defensive manager comes out to argue that interference should be called on R2 for drawing a throw to the plate.   

 

Ruling: R2 was just running the bases as he normally would, so interference should not be called. The defense is also responsible to know when a runner is put out.

There's a lot of minutiae in the play...but it's still a good case play for reference.  

[Velho]

34 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Here's a case play (reference play) from the WUM: 

R1, R2, no out, 1-2 count. The batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop, who fields the ball to the third baseman, covering third. R2 is retired on the force play, and then the third baseman throws across the infield to first base. The throw is in the dirt, and just gets by the first baseman. R2, believing he was called safe, scrambles to his feet. Seeing the ball get by the first baseman, R2 begins running home.

Great reason to be loud on calling R2 out- every time.

[The Man in Blue]

17 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Ruling: R2 was just running the bases as he normally would, so interference should not be called. The defense is also responsible to know when a runner is put out.

There's a lot of minutiae in the play...but it's still a good case play for reference.  

 

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.