ASA Interference after release of throw

[ichiromoco]

In a rundown once player releases throw how much time does he have to get out of runners way. Had a play yesterday where player released ball and runner turned back and ran into player who did not have ball. Umpire said he has time to get out of way after release like a continuation in basketball and did not rule interference. Is this strictly a judgement call? I was under impression that it's you have the ball or don't. Black and white.

 

[sjury]

I'd call interference, but it's a judgement call. If you were so close that the second you released the ball the runner was touching you, you should have tagged the runner, if it's not that close there is plenty of time to peel off. You are right you either have the ball or don't. In the rare case that the runner turns into the fielder to try and "draw" the call is an exception.

 

[ichiromoco]

The runner turned back into the fielder right after he threw it. He did not have the ball at contact.

 

[eddieq]

So, the fielder was impeding the runner without possession of the ball?

 

[rhound50]

So, the fielder was impeding the runner without possession of the ball?

Simple and correct solution.

 

[ichiromoco]

So, the fielder was impeding the runner without possession of the ball?

Yes. But umpire who is a sr Asa umpire said that fielder has time to make a follow through of his release like a continuation in basketball. His words.

So is that true or is it simply black and white possession?

 

[irishmafia]

Yes. But umpire who is a sr Asa umpire said that fielder has time to make a follow through of his release like a continuation in basketball. His words.

So is that true or is it simply black and white possession?

Define "sr ASA umpire". Doesn't make any difference, he was probably just trying to dummy down the explanation.

Yes, it is BLACK AND WHITE POSSESSION. No "what ifs", or "but last week" or "boy, that umpire's ****ing old, he can't be right" bull****. If the fielder did not have POSSESSION of the ball at the time of the impediment, IT IS OBSTRUCTION.

 

[ichiromoco]

Sr meaning he's been around a long time. IMO he missed the call.
Thanks guys.

 

[mrcub8]

Define "sr ASA umpire". Doesn't make any difference, he was probably just trying to dummy down the explanation.

Yes, it is BLACK AND WHITE POSSESSION. No "what ifs", or "but last week" or "boy, that umpire's ****ing old, he can't be right" bull****. If the fielder did not have POSSESSION of the ball at the time of the impediment, IT IS OBSTRUCTION.

on the 2nd post he stated the runner turned back into the fielder.......to me it seems he was initially doing the right thing "down or out" to avoid contact but then instead of continuing his new path he intentionally turned back into the path of the fielder....

to me this is a play that I'd have to see because was the contact incidental or did he just mow him down (malicious contact) and if so it could possibly be an ejection of the runner......so to me we have to many unknowns unless we can see the actual play

 

[irishmafia]

on the 2nd post he stated the runner turned back into the fielder.......to me it seems he was initially doing the right thing "down or out" to avoid contact but then instead of continuing his new path he intentionally turned back into the path of the fielder....

to me this is a play that I'd have to see because was the contact incidental or did he just mow him down (malicious contact) and if so it could possibly be an ejection of the runner......so to me we have to many unknowns unless we can see the actual play

You can try to justify this all you want, you are wrong.

I'm done with this one. Too many people just don't want to hear the facts.

 

[andy-rockstar]

If an umpire has to describe a rule in terms of another sport's rule, then he's probably wrong.

 

[Pheonix51]

on the 2nd post he stated the runner turned back into the fielder.......to me it seems he was initially doing the right thing "down or out" to avoid contact but then instead of continuing his new path he intentionally turned back into the path of the fielder....

to me this is a play that I'd have to see because was the contact incidental or did he just mow him down (malicious contact) and if so it could possibly be an ejection of the runner......so to me we have to many unknowns unless we can see the actual play

So you want the baserunner to continue running towards a tag? Pretty certain every runner who gets the ball thrown in front of them in a RD turns around when they see it thrown...