Another Unusual Play

[cobb_of_fury]

Good discussion everyone. This was an ASA tourney. For those curious as to the ruling, here it is:

R1 obviously scored. R2 also scored, but was then called for interference by a retired runner. R3 was subsequently called out and the batter-runner was returned to second base.
In summary: Two runs scored, one out recorded (R2 being closest to home plate at the time dead ball/interference was declared), and one runner returned to second base as the defense prepared to face the next batter.

ASA Rule 8, Section 7P: 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.

I have to disagree with the call - As you described it the R2 did not interfere with a defensive player opportunity to make a play on another runner because F2 did not poses the ball - She was chasing an errant throw. Had F2 been on the 3B side of the plate and the same thing happened she could be called for obstruction.

 

[BretMan2]

If the runner flattened the catcher and the runners kept advancing extra bases, then you can say that subsequent play opportunities were interfered with. But I still would want to see how the contact was initiated before saying this was interference.

The runner isn't required to slide, so the fact that she didn't is irrelevant. The runner 100% has the right of way here and isn't required to slow down or change her course- or predict when the catcher will suddenly move from her position and cut in front of her.

The correct rule has been quoted, but that doesn't mean that it was applied correctly. Every call has two elements: the rule itself plus the umpire's judgment of the play. Since the runner has the right of way here, I'm giving her every benefit of the doubt on an interference call. I'm going to need to see something more than a runner who has the right of way simply running to/through the base.

It sounds like the umpire saw a collision and felt that he had to call...something. But not all contact is illegal contact! I'm not saying that this can't be interference. I'm saying that it's not necessarily interference.

 

[HeyBlue!]

I agree with the majority of what you stated BretMan (I usually do).

I should note, the catcher didn't suddenly veer into the path of R2, as the contact didn't happen directly behind the plate. If anything R2 stumbling caused her to veer into the catcher (I know it's a lot easier to see a play and comment than to try to read and interpret someone's description.)

As you correctly pointed out, not all contact is illegal contact.

When a runner who could have avoided contact bumps into a fielder retrieving a ball in foul territory, no harm play on.

When a runner who could have avoided contact puts both hands out, pushes a fielder to the ground, you still may have "no harm - play on" or you may have an interference call if you determine it was intentional (which is impossible to know for sure, since no one can read minds as to a player's intent). Again, judgment.

And when a runner who could have avoided contact puts both hands out, pushes a fielder to the ground and then lands on her and makes no attempt to let her get up, you now have put the defensive player at a disadvantage. Both trailing runners would have scored easily under the circumstances, which would not been the case had the catcher not been knocked to the ground and laid upon. Again, judgment.

 

[BretMan2]

I'm sure that we agree on which rule applies in these situations. As far as the judgment part...I'll defer to the umpire who was there and actually saw the play!