Interference, or not?

[Eric F]

I disagree.

Stop the vid when the 3B player begins to make her throw, then continue the vid.
You will see the Runner's path continues further into the field of play, before turning her path toward HP.

Way too difficult to determine in real-time, but in slo-mo I think she breaks MTR's rule...

But, yet, that's how umpires have to make their decisions...in real time.

I see a curved base-running path, no doubt designed to make the play more challenging for the defense. The runner doesn't have to adjust their path to give the defense a clear throwing lane. If she had made a sudden move in an effort to deflect the ball, I would agree with interference. That didn't happen. The ball was behind her when it was fielded and thrown, and her path was already established (it doesn't have to be a straight line). Similar stuff happens at other bases frequently. It's savvy base-running.

 

[Mad4Ball]

There is a coach at our local college that teaches this. If the person waiting to receive the ball is inside the baseline then move to inside the base line and run to the base/plate. This is a tactic he uses in rundowns as well. He says the runner as the right to establish whatever path the the base they want (much like a runner changing their angle from straight to the plate to rounding it) but then must keep that path going to the base/plate.

 

[PlayPerfect]

This isn't savvy base running or a result of good coaching. This is an obvious and intentional act of interfering with the catcher attempting to receive a thrown ball. I didn't see a snake or an IED in the base line. She chose this circuitous route to intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. It's bush league. She's out, and if they had a chance at a double play, so is the batter-runner. I hope no umpire would ever reward this kind of baserunning.

 

[PlayPerfect]

That is because the citation is incorrect. The rule is printed as "(2) an out is called" and it is the runner closest to the plate when the interference is called on a non-active participant (live B, BR or R).

AFA the play is concerned, the runner established her route prior to the release of the throw. For that matter, it looked like she was going inside before F5 even fielded the ball, so lacking some other act on behalf of the runner to interfere, IMO, this is just heads up base running and no different then a runner rounding 2nd wide when a throw to 3rd is coming from center/right center field.

MTR - With all due respect, your knowledge of the book is impeccable, but your judgment is horrendous. This is completely different than rounding second and heading to third. She started at third 2 feet foul and ran 3 feet inside the line ONLY because the catcher was there. I played the game and I INTENTIONALLY did this maneuver to INTENTIONALLY interfere with the line of vision and path of the throw. I banked on umpires like you that would let me get away with this crap. This was intentional and an obvious attempt to interfere with the easy play at home.

 

[MTR]

MTR - With all due respect, your knowledge of the book is impeccable, but your judgment is horrendous. This is completely different than rounding second and heading to third. She started at third 2 feet foul and ran 3 feet inside the line ONLY because the catcher was there. I played the game and I INTENTIONALLY did this maneuver to INTENTIONALLY interfere with the line of vision and path of the throw. I banked on umpires like you that would let me get away with this crap. This was intentional and an obvious attempt to interfere with the easy play at home.

I did this, also, in baseball, FP & SP and there is no rule stating I could not. It is not a matter of letting you get away with anything, but following the rules. Show me the rule where it dictates the path of the runner. The runner established a base path and then was hit with the ball. She did not move into the throw or change her path, wave her arms, etc. to interfere with the throw.

 

[PlayPerfect]

NFHS - Rule 2-32 Interference - an act that illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder. She hindered the catcher by not only blocking her view but also confused her because she didn't know where the ball was. This intentional act of taking a non traditional path to the plate (defined as three feet to each side of baseline) with the purpose of blocking the throw of the fielder and the line of vision of the catcher is an illegal act. She was at least 4 feet off the line. NFHS -Rule 8-6-10(d) - Runner is out for intentionally interfering with a fielder or a thrown ball. Her act of being so far in the line intentionally removes the need for her to be "waving her arms". Just running in that position is the intentional act of doing so to intentionally hinder the fielder and the throw.

 

[MTR]

I've seen less patchwork in my grandmother's quilts

NFHS - Rule 2-32 Interference - an act that illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder. She hindered the catcher by not only blocking her view but also confused her because she didn't know where the ball was. This intentional act of taking a non traditional path to the plate (defined as three feet to each side of baseline) with the purpose of blocking the throw of the fielder and the line of vision of the catcher is an illegal act. She was at least 4 feet off the line. NFHS -Rule 8-6-10(d) - Runner is out for intentionally interfering with a fielder or a thrown ball. Her act of being so far in the line intentionally removes the need for her to be "waving her arms". Just running in that position is the intentional act of doing so to intentionally hinder the fielder and the throw.

Where in the rule book is a "traditional path" defined? And please note the word "illegally" in the definition of INT. The catcher has no right to any specific view of a thrown ball and if there was anyone who didn't know where the ball was, it was the runner with her back to the play. The runner did NOT interfere with any fielder and couldn't interfere with a throw since there it was the throw was after the runner took any action.

I might suggest that you enclose a warning with this post of the threat of colon cancer due to second-hand smoke

 

[PlayPerfect]

Traditional Path is defined at NFHS Rule 2-3, Art. 2 defines Base Path - " The traditional path travelled by a runner who is attempting to advance to the next base. It is defined by a direct line between two bases and 3 feet on either side of that line." and then "Note: a runner establishes her own base path when she is not being played upon." My argument hinges on intentionally interfering with a thrown ball and the vision of the fielder receiving it. Is waving of arms legal as long as the arms are not touched by the ball? For instance, is the act of waving arms intereference when a play is being made on that runner from the angle of the runner? If so, then the act of running in the same line of vision is intentional interference as well. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

 

[Eric F]

Does NCAA have the same rules on this issue?

Does "played upon" include a force out situation, or does it only relate to tag plays?

 

[MTR]

Traditional Path is defined at NFHS Rule 2-3, Art. 2 defines Base Path - " The traditional path travelled by a runner who is attempting to advance to the next base. It is defined by a direct line between two bases and 3 feet on either side of that line." and then "Note: a runner establishes her own base path when she is not being played upon." My argument hinges on intentionally interfering with a thrown ball and the vision of the fielder receiving it. Is waving of arms legal as long as the arms are not touched by the ball? For instance, is the act of waving arms intereference when a play is being made on that runner from the angle of the runner? If so, then the act of running in the same line of vision is intentional interference as well. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

The note clearly states that the runner establishes her own base path with no reference to being aligned with the administrative definition.

The runner cannot be ruled on interfering with a throw since there was no throw at the time the runner established her base path. The waving of the arms is an ACT of interference. If this runner raised her arms or made any act that was not associated with her attempt to advance, that would have been interference.

I'm not arguing about what the runner did, I'm just stating that the rules do not support an interference call.....unless you want to get creative with vague interpretations and that has a long lasting effect which leads to inconsistent application of the actual rules, let alone providing support for each umpire to massage whatever rule they need to justify a ruling.