Interference - have to throw?

[GunnerShotgun]

I searched for this but couldn't find it specifically.

Runner on 1B and ball hit two SS who tries to turn unassisted double play. Runner from 1B does not attempt to slide into 2B and is standing point blank in front of SS who raised her arm to throw to 1B. Since SS did not want to hit the runner she did not make the throw.

Umpire said no interference since SS didn't complete the throw.

Understanding that the runner doesn't have to slide (has to avoid?) i didn't think you HAD to throw it to get interference. Specifically I was thinking about a runner stealing third and the batter steps out of the box and is in the catchers throwing lane.

This was USSSA if it matters.

I just want to get this straight in my mind.

 

[Comp]

You already know the runner is not required to slide, and, even if the fielder had thrown the ball it is not necessarily interference. The runner must do something to interfere with the play, and just being there is not in itself interference.

 

[GunnerShotgun]

The umpire in this case was looking to debate this with me and his position was that the player has to physically throw the ball for interference to be called (on this particular play).

I thought from a previous discussion that a throw wasn't necessary for interference (runner stealing third, batter steps out of box in catchers throwing lane).

Perhaps the two are unrelated.

 

[chinamigarden]

How close are we talking, was she within a foot or two of the SS or was she 20 feet down the line?

 

[GunnerShotgun]

Runner was out by a couple of steps so when SS came across the bag to throw they were face to face. Odd that the runner didn't slide and once she realized she was out she just stopped (to avoid collision I guess).

From a coaching perspective it was bad footwork by the SS. She should have stepped inside the bag for the kick out and a proper throwing lane.

I didn't even argue the call (parents were yelling about it) but the umpire chased me down after the inning saying she "has to throw the ball" to get that call.

 

[Ajaywill]

There is no requirement for the fielder to have to throw the ball in order for interference to be called in the scenario described.

The definition of interference is the act of the offensive player that hinders or impedes the defensive player (paraphrase).
If the umpire judged that the SS did not throw the ball to avoid hitting the retired runner, the umpire COULD judge that to be interference. In real life, on the ball field, however, it is unlikely that interference would be called in this case because there was no attempt at a play (throw to first to attempt to retire the batter-runner) to interfere with. The umpire definitely stating that "there has to be a throw to call interference" is not entirely correct.

Just FYI...the situation you used for comparison of a batter stepping out of the batters box on an attempted steal of third is a different animal and subject to a different set of conditions than that of a retired runner. With the batter, the mere act of her being out of the batters box has her in danger of an interference call, whether she does anything to interfere with the throw or not. In addition, it is also unlikely that interference would be called in that situation without an attempted throw to third, even though the rule does allow for the call.

 

[Momo'sDad]

No, the throw is not required in order to get the INT call, but how does the umpire know the player was attempting to make a play?

Complete the play. I think it's fine that your player did not want to deliberately hit the oncoming runner, but I would encourage her to try to get a clear throwing lane to make the play. If she fails to convert the DP and no INT is called, request time and respectfully ask why it was not called. Maybe the umpire will see it your way. But if your player gives up on the play - regardless of the reason - and is judged to have given up on the play, it's going to be tough to get that call after the fact.