ASA Runner interference question

[jplum13]

Last night we were playing the field, runner on first, corec ball. Ball was hit to the SS who moved to tag 2nd and throw to first for the double play. The runner going to second did not slide or get out of the way and there was a pretty good collision during the throw. Ultimately, the ump called the runner at 2nd out (because SS beat him to the bag, close play) and the batter/runner safe at 1st. He said there was no interference because both the runner and fielder were making a play for the bag at the same time. He said that the SS needed to beat the runner by at least 1 full step before interference could be called. Was this the correct call?

Also, he called a foul tip (did not go over the batter's head) that was caught by the catcher a dead ball foul. Didn't ASA change the rule so that any foul tip caught by the catcher, regardless of how high it went, was an out?

 

[irishmafia]

Last night we were playing the field, runner on first, corec ball. Ball was hit to the SS who moved to tag 2nd and throw to first for the double play. The runner going to second did not slide or get out of the way and there was a pretty good collision during the throw. Ultimately, the ump called the runner at 2nd out (because SS beat him to the bag, close play) and the batter/runner safe at 1st. He said there was no interference because both the runner and fielder were making a play for the bag at the same time. He said that the SS needed to beat the runner by at least 1 full step before interference could be called. Was this the correct call?

It was the correct result, but the umpire's reasoning is strictly his own. There is no requirement for the retired runner to abandon his efforts to reach a base and cannot just go "poof" and disappear into thin air the second the out is made.

Also, he called a foul tip (did not go over the batter's head) that was caught by the catcher a dead ball foul. Didn't ASA change the rule so that any foul tip caught by the catcher, regardless of how high it went, was an out?

Going over the batter's head has NEVER been a faction in whether a ball could be caught for an out or not. The previous rule only stated that a ball which was over the batter's head could NOT be a foul tip.

If this was a foul tip, and it doesn't sound like it, there is no out. Then again any "caught" ball cannot be a "dead ball foul".

 

[Sonic625]

The key is the ball hit must have a perceptible arc and the catcher has to move his glove to catch the ball, if it goes directly to the glove from the bat then that is a foul tip

 

[Sully]

It was the correct result, but the umpire's reasoning is strictly his own. There is no requirement for the retired runner to abandon his efforts to reach a base and cannot just go "poof" and disappear into thin air the second the out is made.



Going over the batter's head has NEVER been a faction in whether a ball could be caught for an out or not. The previous rule only stated that a ball which was over the batter's head could NOT be a foul tip.

If this was a foul tip, and it doesn't sound like it, there is no out. Then again any "caught" ball cannot be a "dead ball foul".

I gotta disagree with you for once. The runner can't go poof into thin air, but he is OBLIGATED not to crash into the fielder. He is also obligated to allow the fielder to have a clear path to attempt the double play.

Rule 8, Section 7, paragraph P says:
"When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes
with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the
interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched
at the time of the interference."

Also there is a whole section on crashing into the runner. Rules of Emphasis 13 says:" to make a play on a runner, a runner must be called out when they remain on their feet and crash into a defensive player who is holding the ball and waiting to apply a tag. To prevent the out ruling, the runner may slide, jump over the defender holding the ball, go around the defender or return to the previous base touched. If the act is determined to be flagrant, the offender is ejected. A runner may slide into the fielder."

Now that specifically mentions running into a fielder applying the tag, but paragraph C of that some ROE says: "C. When a crash occurs after the runner is called out, the runner closest
to home plate is also out. Rule 8, Section 7 P."

It even sites 8,7,P as the reference. Going by what the OP said, the runner was out and crashed into the fielder attempting to make the double play throw. That sounds like interference to me.

The definition of interference is: " INTERFERENCE: The act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary." Contact isn't even necessary but in this case we even have the contact.

If the throw draws him into the runner thats one thing, but this sounds like the runner didn't slide and crashed into the SS after he was already put out. He doesn't have to go poof, but he can't impede the SS from making a play on another runner. Sliding, going around or avoiding the fielder all fit the bill without him having to go poof.

 

[Sully]

Not trying to insult your intelligence irishmafia, I'm pretty sure you've been umping a while, just trying to cite the rule book and definitions for my explanation.

 

[johnsonrod]

just playing devils advocate with you sully.

the runner is allowed to run full speed standing up and 'stop on a dime' at 2nd base....

had the runner beaten the SS to the base and the SS tried to throw to 1st, you certainly arent calling interference on the runner.

now if the SS beats the runner to the base by .000001 second, you certainly cant call interference on the runner

if the SS beats the runner to the base by 3 seconds, you certainly would call interference on the runner.

i guess it comes down to did the runner have enough time to 'meet' his running obligation and not 'crash' into the fielder.

 

[irishmafia]

Not trying to insult your intelligence irishmafia, I'm pretty sure you've been umping a while, just trying to cite the rule book and definitions for my explanation.

44 years.

Interference is not automatic. The player must actually do something to interfere with the play. Like a batter who is NOT called out for interferring with the catcher's throw if they are just doing what they are supposed to be doing. If the runner is doing what they are supposed to do, that is not an ACT of interference.

This was all discussed in Colorado Springs when the rules were changed on the most part to eliminate the term and/or requirement for intent when referring to interference.

 

[Sully]

just playing devils advocate with you sully.

the runner is allowed to run full speed standing up and 'stop on a dime' at 2nd base....

had the runner beaten the SS to the base and the SS tried to throw to 1st, you certainly arent calling interference on the runner.

now if the SS beats the runner to the base by .000001 second, you certainly cant call interference on the runner

if the SS beats the runner to the base by 3 seconds, you certainly would call interference on the runner.

i guess it comes down to did the runner have enough time to 'meet' his running obligation and not 'crash' into the fielder.

I figured. My problem is the crashing into the fielder. I can't think of too many times when the runner crashing into a fielder is ok. I know sometimes the throw draws the fielder into the runners path, but that doesn't sound like the case here at all.

44 years.

Interference is not automatic. The player must actually do something to interfere with the play. Like a batter who is NOT called out for interferring with the catcher's throw if they are just doing what they are supposed to be doing. If the runner is doing what they are supposed to do, that is not an ACT of interference.

This was all discussed in Colorado Springs when the rules were changed on the most part to eliminate the term and/or requirement for intent when referring to interference.

I figured it might have been a while. Not trying to argue, but I think most times if the runner crashes into the fielder, that's pretty much interference, especially if he's already out.

I guess I will ask you since you have been doing this a while. When would crashing into the fielder attempting to make a throw not be interference? I wouldn't let a runner crash into the fielder even if he wasn't making a throw.

I ump a lot of true rec level games and I call the runners out for running into the base standing up in the throwing lane if the fielder has to change their natural throwing motion to throw around the runner. I don't even need contact. I've already seen one runner get their face rearranged, I'd prefer not to do that again. The bad part is after you get your face rearranged, you get called for interference to add insult to injury.

I do like the fact they removed the need to determine intent. It can be accidental (and in the cases I've seen, a lot of them are) but it is still interference.

 

[NCASAUmp]

Sully, I don't think we can come up with a statement that encompasses every situation when it comes to a runner interfering (or not interfering) with a defensive player's ability to get an out. It boils down to treating each situation separately, but as consistently as possible.

If a runner had a clear opportunity to avoid contact (such as being called out 6 steps before reaching 2B), then it's easy to call the interference. If it's a tight play, the runner was live, and they have the right to choose if they want to go into the base standing up if doing so might make the difference.

It all boils down to judgment, and I don't think you can draw a clear line in the sand that says "this side is interference, this side is not."