Strange situation - I think Blue made a mistake

[broadband]

B.S. Unless you clearly saw runner change direction to interfere with the throw this is nothing, live ball play on.

Guys, for those of you who think that there must be an intentional act of interference, you are just completely wrong. We do not judge intent, as the rule for interference does not require such. Very few rules in the book include intent anymore. One such rule is intentionally kicking a ball that has deflected off of an infielder. This is not one of those cases.

I can't tell the runner where to be, but I can tell her where not to be, and that is in the way of the play.

Just wondering, if you have a runner on 3rd who is off with the pitch, then returns as F2 throws to F6 for a pick off play, do you call interference if the ball hits her?
I know it's not exactly the same, but

Again, all these have to do with interference. The word 'intent' comes into play even though it doesn't really specifically say that in the rulebook. In the end, it is really up to the umpire to make a fair call on the play that does not place one team in an advantage over another. The best part of the rulebook(ASA) is 10-1 and 10-3-A.

[hit4power]

8-7-J doesn't apply when R1 is no longer a runner after being put out. 8-7-P is the applicable rule when an offensive player interferes after being declared out.

I think this is a key point (and the one I was trying to make earlier) that once the runner is retired she has an obligation to be out of the way of any subsequent play on another runner.

To Hugo's question I think the difference would be that in the pickoff situation, the runner has not been retired and so I ( a dumb parent not a blue) would not expect an INT call.

[MTR]

Umpire calls B1 out because "R1 should have gotten out of the way for safety reasons". Umpire admits that R1 was not close enough to slide, but says she was responsible for getting out of the way of the throw.

I always thought that the fielder had to "clear" the runner in this situation.

The umpire is wrong and this is a protestable ruling since the umpire has misinterpreted the rule.

The runner is responsible to do nothing other than to not commit an act of interference. Failure to provide the defense a throwing lane is not interference.

[K'SDAD]

One Day the Devil challenged the Lord to a baseball game.

Smiling the Lord proclaimed, "You don't have a chance, I've got Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and all the greatest players up here."

"Yes", laughed the devil, "but I have all the umpires!"

As a facebook status this gets a lot of likes.

[lvtwft]

Umpire calls B1 out because "R1 should have gotten out of the way for safety reasons". Umpire admits that R1 was not close enough to slide, but says she was responsible for getting out of the way of the throw.

I always thought that the fielder had to "clear" the runner in this situation.

The umpire is wrong and this is a protestable ruling since the umpire has misinterpreted the rule.

The runner is responsible to do nothing other than to not commit an act of interference. Failure to provide the defense a throwing lane is not interference.

As a runner would she not be aware she was just put out and her non actions of moving out of the way be interpreted as int?
As an ump what would you all see there?
She knows she is out but continues to run to the base without any effort to move out of the way...
What is a reasonable response on the runners part here?

[MTR]

As a runner would she not be aware she was just put out and her non actions of moving out of the way be interpreted as int? As an ump what would you all see there?
She knows she is out but continues to run to the base without any effort to move out of the way...
What is a reasonable response on the runners part here?

The runner's job is to attempt to gain the next base safely. Just because the defense executes a play does not mean the runner must stop immediately or disappear into thin air.

As has been stated numerous times, there must be an act of interference. Performing their duties as a runner is NOT an act of interference. About now, someone is going to say, "but the runner should veer off" Really? Show me a rule which requires a runner to be a mind-reader.

What happens if the runner veers off in the same direction at the defender is moving to make a throw? Are you going to want an INT call then, also? Damn right the DC will be out there in a heartbeat if it isn't called! And what will the argument be? S/he moved into my fielder's throwing lane? Again, show me a rule mentioning a throwing lane. There isn't, but there is a rule which prohibits the runner from committing an act of interference and that is exactly what the runner did when s/he stopped trying to advance to the base and moved to an area s/he did not belong.

Like the catcher is taught to plan to throw somewhere else because the batter is supposed to be in the BB, the runner is supposed to be in the basepath and the defender should plan on throwing the ball somewhere else besides that area.

[Joe]

We do not judge intent...

I think I just lost my breakfast burrito on that one...

[PDad]

The runner's job is to attempt to gain the next base safely. Just because the defense executes a play does not mean the runner must stop immediately or disappear into thin air.

As has been stated numerous times, there must be an act of interference. Performing their duties as a runner is NOT an act of interference. About now, someone is going to say, "but the runner should veer off" Really? Show me a rule which requires a runner to be a mind-reader.

...

Like the catcher is taught to plan to throw somewhere else because the batter is supposed to be in the BB, the runner is supposed to be in the basepath and the defender should plan on throwing the ball somewhere else besides that area.

I'm just playing devil's advocate...

- Why is a retired runner treated differently than a batter that stays in the BB with a runner trying to score from 3B on a WP/PB?

- Baseball runners are generally allowed to go after the fielder as long as their path takes them within reach of 2B. In softball, is this an act of interference or just a duty of the runner?

[lvtwft]

As has been stated numerous times, there must be an act of interference

I do understand what you are saying here. I want to know when R1 is out, what is her responsibility on the play now?
If she keeps running toward 2nd base is that int? She had plenty of time to see what was going on and she all ready probably knew where the ball was hit that she was going to be thrown out at 2nd.
I just want to understand what is R1's responsibility is after she is out?
I could argue she meant to keep running at the bag and that her intent was to interfere with the throw..

[Sheriff10]

As has been stated numerous times, there must be an act of interference

I do understand what you are saying here. I want to know when R1 is out, what is her responsibility on the play now?
If she keeps running toward 2nd base is that int? She had plenty of time to see what was going on and she all ready probably knew where the ball was hit that she was going to be thrown out at 2nd.
I just want to understand what is R1's responsibility is after she is out?
I could argue she meant to keep running at the bag and that her intent was to interfere with the throw..

How is the runner to know whether the umpire may call her safe due to the fielder pulling her foot too early on the throw or missing the bag all together?