Interference by runner who has already scored

[TopHat64]

R1+R3, 2 outs, 3-2 count. NCAA Rules.

R1 runs as soon as the pitcher comes set, and gets into a rundown. R3 breaks home, and the throw to the plate gets away to the backstop. F2 goes to field the ball as R3 is returning to the 3B dugout after scoring. R1 reaches third base on the overthrow, but there is a question as to whether R3 was in the catcher's throwing lane, possibly interfering with the play at third. I called it a no-call because I didn't believe R3 was actually in the throwing lane or hindering the play. My question is if I did actually believe that R3 after scoring actually did (unintentionally) hinder the play, is it cause to call R1 out at third? My best understanding is that from reading the rule:

6-2(i): "If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference."

This probably is an out because a runner who has already scored isn't the same as a runner, but he's also not interfering with the attempt to field the thrown ball. He's possibly interfering with the throw itself. Of course, interfering with a thrown ball as an actual runner is usually "that's nothing" unless it's intentional. Any thoughts on this play and whether there's a better rules reference? Thanks.

[Coach Carl]

Maybe these will help.  From the 2022 Rules.  

Rule 2 Definitions:

SECTION 51. An act that hinders or prevents a player from making a play. a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. 

Rule 8-5 When Runners Are Out

q. Any member of the offensive team does not vacate any live-ball area, thus interfering with a defensive player attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. This includes the batter, once the pitch has crossed the plate. 

I believe "thrown" ball is synonomous with "not batted".  In other words, for the purposes of the rules, if it is not batted, it is thrown.  There are no rules that I am aware of that use another descriptor besides thrown or batted.

The Interference definition helps to see that the standard is interfering with a fielder "attempting to make a play."  That means, I think, attempting to get a baserunner out.  It also implies that contact with the ball or the fielder is not required.  Obstructing, impeding, hindering or confusing can all happen without contact (based on umpire judgement, of course).

8-5-q helps to see that the interference (in your play) does not have to be intentional.  The member of the offense has the obligation to get out of the way.  This implies that intent is not required. 

I'm just a coach who likes to study the rules so some better experts should be along to confirm or refute.

[BigBlue4u]

7 hours ago, Coach Carl said:

Rule 8-5 When Runners Are Out

q. Any member of the offensive team does not vacate any live-ball area, thus interfering with a defensive player attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. This includes the batter, once the pitch has crossed the plate. 

Coach Carl,

I don't think you quoted the applicable part of section 5.  Go down to 8-5-d. "A runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball." So, in the play offered by TopHat64, the umpire should no-call it unless he thought the interference was intentional. Here's an example of a no-call:  R1 going on the pitch.  Ground ball to F4 who throws to 2b for an attempted force out.  However, the throw hits the sliding R1 and rolls toward the pitcher's mound.  Are we going to call interference on R1?  I certainly hope not.  That's why 8-5-d provides that interference with a throw or thrown ball must be intentional for an out to be called.

[Replacematt]

6 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Coach Carl,

I don't think you quoted the applicable part of section 5.  Go down to 8-5-d. "A runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball." So, in the play offered by TopHat64, the umpire should no-call it unless he thought the interference was intentional. Here's an example of a no-call:  R1 going on the pitch.  Ground ball to F4 who throws to 2b for an attempted force out.  However, the throw hits the sliding R1 and rolls toward the pitcher's mound.  Are we going to call interference on R1?  I certainly hope not.  That's why 8-5-d provides that interference with a throw or thrown ball must be intentional for an out to be called.

It wasn't a runner who interfered.

[johnnyg08]

21 hours ago, TopHat64 said:

R1+R3, 2 outs, 3-2 count. NCAA Rules.

R1 runs as soon as the pitcher comes set, and gets into a rundown. R3 breaks home, and the throw to the plate gets away to the backstop. F2 goes to field the ball as R3 is returning to the 3B dugout after scoring. R1 reaches third base on the overthrow, but there is a question as to whether R3 was in the catcher's throwing lane, possibly interfering with the play at third. I called it a no-call because I didn't believe R3 was actually in the throwing lane or hindering the play. My question is if I did actually believe that R3 after scoring actually did (unintentionally) hinder the play, is it cause to call R1 out at third? My best understanding is that from reading the rule:

6-2(i): "If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference."

This probably is an out because a runner who has already scored isn't the same as a runner, but he's also not interfering with the attempt to field the thrown ball. He's possibly interfering with the throw itself. Of course, interfering with a thrown ball as an actual runner is usually "that's nothing" unless it's intentional. Any thoughts on this play and whether there's a better rules reference? Thanks.

Yes, this could be interference...but I feel like you'd need a throw. The risk in making a blanket statement like this is that we don't want to bail the defense out by simply throwing at the offensive player. 

[Coach Carl]

11 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

"A runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball." So, in the play offered by TopHat64, the umpire should no-call it unless he thought the interference was intentional.

In your sitch (R1 stealing) he is a runner and the intent standard applies.  In TopHat's sitch the player has scored and is no longer a runner.  I think that changes his status in regards to being liable for interference (intent not required).  I think he is now under the same interference standards as the base coaches and the on-deck batter.  He has an obligation to get out (or stay out) of the way.  In TopHat's sitch, I think you would call interference if, in your judgement as umpire, both of these conditions apply: (1) the member of the offense is able to get out of the way and (2) actual obstructing, hindring, etc. has been committed.