Strange situation - I think Blue made a mistake

[vcblue]

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.

This was a bad call, and if the ump truly said he called the 2nd out due to safety reason then the umpire confirms my stance. Even if he didn't say that the runner does not have to get out of the way from 10' to 12'.

ASAPAump 8-7-3-J Effect makes this one of those interference calls where we judge intent. "...is an attempt to prevent a double play..."

The only way to do this is by judging intent. In addition to be able to call this than you must be more than certain a double play would be the outcome had she been able to throw the ball cleanly (as defined by a double play).

[wadeintothem]

Horrible call unless the runner did something TO interfere. Merely existing and doing what you are supposed to be doing and getting hit by a bad throw is not interference. Yes its a judgment call, that doesn't relieve the umpire of making the correct judgment for the correct reasons. If the umpire said what you said, then that settles it.. and for what its worth.. bad call.

[CharlieHough]

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!"

[Iluvblue]

That is FUNNY. I think I may prnt that out and have it on the co9ver of my binder with all our team info.

:)

[SnocatzDad]

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.

I just think your way off on this. I didn't say anything about intent. But for it to be interference the runner has to actively do something. Running on a straight line from 1B to 2B is not actively interefering with the play. Dodging and getting hit (even if intent was to be missed by ball) is actively interferening. Continuing on your running path is not actively interefering and is what the runner should do to avoid an interference call.

[hit4power]

Running on a straight line from 1B to 2B is not actively interefering with the play

How is this situation any different than a runner going from 2B to 3B and impeding (not necessarily colliding with) the SS trying to field a grounder? Even if the runner is on a direct line to 3B she can't impede the fielder in the process of making a play. Does it make a difference that the fielder is trying to field rather than throw? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong??

[SnocatzDad]

There is a different standard on interference on a batted ball being fielded by the defense prior to that ball passing a fielder (excluding the pitcher). It's in the supplement on interference in the ASA book and 8.7.J. Trying to apply that batted ball standard to a thrown ball doesn't hold water. You don't even get to apply the batted ball standard to all batted balls (i.e. deflections, balls that pass corners playing in, etc...)

This isn't dodgeball or kickball, IMO you aren't going to find a case study to support what ASAPAump is saying. If it was ruled the way ASAPAump is saying you would literally see fielders throwing the ball center body mass every time on this play because you can't judge the intent of the fielder was to hit the runner rather than throw to the base any more than you can judge the runners intent was to interfere with the throw.

[PDad]

This was a bad call, and if the ump truly said he called the 2nd out due to safety reason then the umpire confirms my stance. Even if he didn't say that the runner does not have to get out of the way from 10' to 12'.

ASAPAump 8-7-3-J Effect makes this one of those interference calls where we judge intent. "...is an attempt to prevent a double play..."

The only way to do this is by judging intent. In addition to be able to call this than you must be more than certain a double play would be the outcome had she been able to throw the ball cleanly (as defined by a double play).

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.

[lvtwft]

There is a different standard on interference on a batted ball being fielded by the defense prior to that ball passing a fielder (excluding the pitcher). It's in the supplement on interference in the ASA book and 8.7.J. Trying to apply that batted ball standard to a thrown ball doesn't hold water. You don't even get to apply the batted ball standard to all batted balls (i.e. deflections, balls that pass corners playing in, etc...)

This isn't dodgeball or kickball, IMO you aren't going to find a case study to support what ASAPAump is saying. If it was ruled the way ASAPAump is saying you would literally see fielders throwing the ball center body mass every time on this play because you can't judge the intent of the fielder was to hit the runner rather than throw to the base any more than you can judge the runners intent was to interfere with the throw.

When I played at the higher levels of baseball, it was said very often to throw at the chest of the approaching runner (I know different sports and rules) when trying to turn a double play.
I ask this, if my SS is coming over 2nd to get a flip from my 2nd baseman to turn a double play and the runner has not got to the point of sliding yet..What is she suppose to do?? Teaching her to create a throwing lane is not an option that would an extra step or two and there goes my double play. I am telling her to throw the ball once she touches that bag, so if the runner is in the way and gets hit because she does not move out of the way, how is that not interference on the runner??

[HugoTafurst]

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