Interference on thrown ball from the outfield

[SoCal_Dad]

This was the result of the play when it ended. Unfortunately, interference needs to be called when it happens. the umpire doesn't have the luxury of waiting to see what happens.

It seems as if this particular umpire did not handle it correctly, but then again, it could have taken a second for it to register that the runner kicked the ball.

Hmm, INT needs to be called when it happens, but it may take a second to register what happened, but then again, they can't consider what happened before it registered...

From CPEM's description, it doesn't sound like a "quality throw" that has been stated as a requirement in other INT discussions.

 

[Comp]

From CPEM's description, it doesn't sound like a "quality throw" that has been stated as a requirement in other INT discussions.

That was in reference to a possible running lane violation and even then if the batter/runner intentionally interfered with a badly thrown ball they would still be guilty of interference. In th OP if the umpire determined the kick of the ball was intentional, it makes no difference if the throw was good or not.

 

[tcannizzo]

This is another HTBT situation.
But consider the definitions of "Interference" and "Play", did kicking the ball prevent/hinder the defense from making a play?

 

[MTR]

Interfering with a thrown ball has to be intentional in order to call an out.
Otherwise every time a runner is hit with a thrown ball during a run down you would have an out.

Not true, at all

 

[MT 73]

Not true, at all

So every time a runner is hit by a thrown and did nothing intentional to interfere (or not be in violation of a running rule) she is out?
Please explain.

 

[CPEM]

This is another HTBT situation.
But consider the definitions of "Interference" and "Play", did kicking the ball prevent/hinder the defense from making a play?

No, it actually helped the defense make a play. The ball was trickling to a stop about 2/3 of the way between 2B and 3B. Without the kick, the ball would not have reached F5 at 3B and BR1 would have easily attained 3B without a play. Instead, with the kick, the ball and BR1 arrived at 3B at almost the same exact time. From where I was standing, I couldn't tell if the tag was applied before or after the runner arrived at 3B. When I saw the umpire call her out, I assumed it was because the tag was applied before. In between innings, he told me he called her out because she intentionally kicked the ball, and that he derived intent from her looking down at the ball. Considering that she kicked the ball in stride, I don't think I could make that determination of intent. It was almost instantaneous (the ball arriving in front of her and the kick), and she did not deviate in her stride or path to the base. The thrown ball came from behind her and she had no way of knowing that ball was going to be there. To top it off, the kick made it a close play when no kick would have meant no play. To me, it was dumb luck that put the ball in her path a moment before her foot got there, and no different than had she been hit in the back by a thrown ball. From my understanding, interference requires interfering with a defensive player attempting to execute a play. The ball was poorly thrown and neither F5 nor any other defender had any opportunity to execute a play (in my opinion), and therefore it should not have been interference.

Keep in mind, my allegiance is to the defensive team, but I thought this was a bad call.

 

[BretMan]

To me, it was dumb luck that put the ball in her path a moment before her foot got there, and no different than had she been hit in the back by a thrown ball.

This is what I'm picturing. Which just goes to show you how "had to be there" most judgment calls are going to be.

But, if you are the umpire and this is how you judge it- that the defense just happened to throw the ball at the runners feet and she inadvertantly contacted it- then there's no interference and you play on, get what you get.

On the other hand, if the umpire judges that the runner intentionally contacted this thrown ball, then you have interference, an immediate dead ball and the runner is out.

From my understanding, interference requires interfering with a defensive player attempting to execute a play.

Sometimes...but not always!

When it comes to intentionally contacting a thrown ball, that alone is enough to get interference. It doesn't matter if the throw is a good one, or if there's a fielder waiting to catch it, or if the throw might have resulted in an out. Runners should never be intentionally contacting thrown balls, so the rules make it sufficiently punitive to prevent it from happening.

Maybe the throw would have gone wild out of play, maybe a fielder would have snagged it and applied a tag,...we'll never know because that darn runner touched it! Instead of playing "what might have happened next" when a runner contacts a throw, the rules just shut everything down at that instant and call the runner out.

 

[MTR]

So every time a runner is hit by a thrown and did nothing intentional to interfere (or not be in violation of a running rule) she is out?
Please explain.

That isn't what you posted nor to what I responded. It is quite possible a runner can interfere with a play without the intention to do so. Happens all the time.

 

[MT 73]

That isn't what you posted nor to what I responded. It is quite possible a runner can interfere with a play without the intention to do so. Happens all the time.

This is what I originally posted;
Interfering with a thrown ball has to be intentional in order to call an out.
Otherwise every time a runner is hit with a thrown ball during a run down you would have an out.

I agree that on a play a runner is out for interference be it intentional or not.
What I am referring to is a runner who is doing nothing wrong and is struck with a thrown ball--such as in a rundown or on a steal.
Or running to 3rd and being struck with the throw from the outfield.
In this case she should not be called out unless it was intentional.
If you disagree can you please give me some examples?

 

[MTR]

This is what I originally posted;
Interfering with a thrown ball has to be intentional in order to call an out.
Otherwise every time a runner is hit with a thrown ball during a run down you would have an out.

I agree that on a play a runner is out for interference be it intentional or not.

And that is to what I responded. I'll give you a perfect example that has been used since 2007 when ASA took "intent" out of the rule:

R1 attempting to advance from 1B on a ground ball to F4 who throws to F6 for the force @ 2B. Advancing directly toward 2B, a) the retired R1 is hit by the throw to F3 in an attempt to retire BR2; b) the retired R1 falls to the ground, but picks herself up to her feet only to be hit by the throw to F3 in an attempt to retire BR2.

In neither case did R1 intend to interfere with the throw. However, in a, the ruling is the player did not commit an act of interference as s/he was simply advancing toward the base s/he was trying to attain. But inb, s/he was no long advancing and stood up in front of a throw and INT should be ruled.

It is the same as a retired runner "peeling" off a base path. It isn't intentional, but it can be an act of interference should it prevent the defense the opportunity to make an out