how would you ruled this?

[CoogansBluff]

Comp posted he wouldn't have called IF and I presume that is because he didn't see the retired B-R do anything out of the ordinary. Other umpires applying the rules in the same fashion might call IF because they judged the B-R intentionally did something to interfere.

First off, thanks for all of your comments. They are helpful.

But just wanted to comment on this part -- You are saying that it comes down to a judgment of whether the batter/runner intended to interfere? It sounds like Nealwallen is saying that intent is irrelevant, that the batter/runner was in the way and had no right to be there since she was retired.

So I remain unclear on the rule. Is it ''once out, you can't be in the way,'' or ''once out, you're protected against interference as long as you're not interfering on purpose?''

 

[Lenski]

It is a judgement call by the umpire, and as others have pointed out, the umpires do not have the use of "instant replay" when making their decisions.

Correct, it is a judgement call and the judgement is either "interference" or "no interference".

 

[SoCal_Dad]

But just wanted to comment on this part -- You are saying that it comes down to a judgment of whether the batter/runner intended to interfere? It sounds like Nealwallen is saying that intent is irrelevant, that the batter/runner was in the way and had no right to be there since she was retired.

So I remain unclear on the rule. Is it ''once out, you can't be in the way,'' or ''once out, you're protected against interference as long as you're not interfering on purpose?''

I don't think intent is a requirement in this situation, but it would certainly justify an IF call. The UIC started off explaining his noncall based on the retired B-R not doing anything out of the ordinary for a B-R, but then went on to say he thought she wasn't in the way, the throw was offline (?) and wouldn't have resulted in an out.

My understanding from previous discussions is retired runners are given some initial latitude because they can't just vanish the instant they're retired. This seems like a nuance that's typically covered in case plays and official interpretations.

 

[MTR]

Speaking ASA

This is a lousy call. The retired BR did not commit an act of interference.

There really isn't anything to debate, it was an umpire either being talked into a call or doesn't know the rule.

 

[CoogansBluff]

Speaking ASA

This is a lousy call. The retired BR did not commit an act of interference.

There really isn't anything to debate, it was an umpire either being talked into a call or doesn't know the rule.

Thanks. Can you explain the rule that governs this?

 

[MTR]

Thanks. Can you explain the rule that governs this?

Cannot explain what does not exist. This is a catcher hitting a player in the back with the ball, nothing more.

For it to be interference, the player would have to acted in a manner in which she cause interference. Supposition on why a player coulda, woulda, shoulda is irrelevant.

What is a batter to do when they hit the ball? That is exactly what happened and the catcher made a poor play. This is not interference.

 

[Amy in AZ.]

That is what I was saying about the catcher. If intentional, could she have been ejected? She barely tapped her, but I have seen friends do that to each other, as a joke.

 

[Comp]

If in your judgement the catcher intentionally threw at the runner, sure it could certainly warrant an ejection. In the video that was posted, however, I do not see it as being intentional. It was just a poor throw by the catcher.

 

[Ajaywill]

Cannot explain what does not exist. This is a catcher hitting a player in the back with the ball, nothing more.

For it to be interference, the player would have to acted in a manner in which she cause interference. Supposition on why a player coulda, woulda, shoulda is irrelevant.

What is a batter to do when they hit the ball? That is exactly what happened and the catcher made a poor play. This is not interference.

This is where I disagree with you.....the retired batter slowing down and slightly moving out of the baseline to first base is the "act" of interference, in my judgement. Had she continued to run towrd first base at the same speed, I would have no interference.

It seems I am in the minority amongst my fellow blues....

 

[Rocketech1]

This is where I disagree with you.....the retired batter slowing down and slightly moving out of the baseline to first base is the "act" of interference, in my judgement. Had she continued to run towrd first base at the same speed, I would have no interference.

It seems I am in the minority amongst my fellow blues....

I agree with you. The batter/baserunner peels off to the right, into the throwing lane, instead of continuing on a straight path to first base. This is important because the catcher is throwing from an angle from the left handed batters box in foul territory. Had she caught the ball right at home plate and made the same throw to 1st the batter/baserunner would likely not have been hit by the ball since she is moving away from the baseline towards the 1st base dugout. The plate umpire had a perfect view of this play and was is in a great position to see it unfold, so I would defer to his judgment on this one.

As an additional thought, poor execution of getting a bunt down (pop-up), poor baserunning by both the R1 and batter/baserunner. R1 should have glanced to home plate to see where the ball was, batter/baserunner should be running hard to 1st base instead of looking back to see where the ball is. Had she just ran hard to 1st base and been hit with the ball, PU probably doesn't call interference. But instead, she looks back to see if the ball is caught, slows down, and peels to her right, directly in the throwing lane.