Interference

[SweepTag]

Last Sunday, while playing in a friendly, we encountered the weirdest call.

Runners on 2nd and 3rd...... one out. Batter hits a bomb to centerfield the centerfielder catches it. Both runners tag up. One scores and the other advances to 3rd.

The umpire calls the runner going to third out because the girl who was already out rounded second base and was jogging toward 2nd base, and the defense threw the ball to second.

We teach our girls to run hard on balls hit to the outfield because you never know if they will drop or not, and now this call come out of nowhere.

Is this the correct call, and if so where can I find it.

I just feel that these types of umpires make it about themselves and want to showcase their knowledge of the book, and forget that we are all there to learn.

[Crabby_Bob]

[ASA] 8.7.P Note

[UmpSteve]

The umpire calls the runner going to third out because the girl who was already out rounded second base and was jogging toward 2nd base, and the defense threw the ball to second.

We teach our girls to run hard on balls hit to the outfield because you never know if they will drop or not, and now this call come out of nowhere.

You either need to temper your instruction or expect more of this. If your already retired runners appear to be advancing and confuse the defense into making a play on them rather than make a play they could have made, then someone else can/would/should be out. They just don't get to act as decoys so other runners can advance.

Run hard on balls to the outfield; sure. Once obviously out, give up and fade out of the apparent base paths so as to not draw another play. And, yes, it is still the base coaches' collective responsibility to let them know when they are out, not just pretend like no one knows.

[Comp]

I dont see an interference call on this play. Runners started on 2nd and 3rd and with the fly out the defense should have known full well there would be no runner between 1st and 2nd. An offensive player continuing to run after being put out may be considered a form of interference, not is considered interference.

[MTR]

I dont see an interference call on this play. Runners started on 2nd and 3rd and with the fly out the defense should have known full well there would be no runner between 1st and 2nd. An offensive player continuing to run after being put out may be considered a form of interference, not is considered interference.

Don't necessarily disagree, but I don't necessarily agree, either. After all, if everyone is supposed to know the situation, confusion wouldn't be possible, would it?

It could be interference without a stretch of the rule. Would definitely have to see it and make my own determination, but as offered, I wouldn't say the call was incorrect.

[GIMNEPIWO]

So when a Catcher throws to first base when there is no play it is DMC but when an Outfielder throws to second base and there is no play it is not DMCF ? If it is a TYPO and she was rounding first and in a jog, not retreating to second; INT seems quite a stretch.

[UmpSteve]

So when a Catcher throws to first base when there is no play it is DMC but when an Outfielder throws to second base and there is no play it is not DMCF ? If it is a TYPO and she was rounding first and in a jog, not retreating to second; INT seems quite a stretch.

Let's clarify.

The OP tells us they teach their players run out each play hard; but then wants to tell us she was just "jogging". I, for one, consider the probability that the description "jogging" is, at best, self-serving, given the stated "justification". There are two givens here (1) someone on defense thought it was a runner, and 2) umpire considered it sufficient to rule interference), and one contradiction (running hard but just jogging), even without considering which part was a typo.

The rule (and note) cited suggests it "MAY" be interference; that is the judgment part of the rule. If the umpire believes the defense was decoyed when there WAS another play, it is a rule that needs to be enforced. No, it isn't automatic; but I'm NOT here to challenge the judgment, we were asked what is the rule and how does it apply?

As to the suggested contradiction on DMC, I can only tell you that the Note cited specifies that D3K "play" as an exception that cannot be considered as a decoy under the cited rule, even when we know it is. The time-honored explanation is that while players can be decoyed unreasonably during a "heat of the moment" play, it is simply "coaching" to teach a catcher when the dropped (uncaught) third strike rule applies, and when it doesn't. It is a relatively simple matter for a coach to remind the catcher (yes, even a 10U catcher) with two strikes when it applies and when it doesn't; while players would more often react to the sight of runners in the middle of a live play.

[SweepTag]

Runners on 2nd and 3rd...... one out. Batter hits a bomb to centerfield the centerfielder catches it. Both runners tag up. One scores and the other advances to 3rd.

I like what Spaz said.........

The defense should already know that the runner was out. Before the pitch there were runners on 2nd and 3rd. Why would there be a live runner going to second.

And.... she ran hard rounding second and slowed down as she approached 2nd, same as jogging.

Bottom line, I don't like the call. Common sense was not used, rather an umpire was out there showcasing his knowledge of the ASA book and wanted the world to know he knew the book inside and out.

I often see some umpires approach players and coaches advising them of violations so that all can learn; this is not what this umpire on HGH was doing. It was a friendly

What a shame........

[GIMNEPIWO]

So when a Catcher throws to first base when there is no play it is DMC but when an Outfielder throws to second base and there is no play it is not DMCF ? If it is a TYPO and she was rounding first and in a jog, not retreating to second; INT seems quite a stretch.

Let's clarify.

The OP tells us they teach their players run out each play hard; but then wants to tell us she was just "jogging". I, for one, consider the probability that the description "jogging" is, at best, self-serving, given the stated "justification". There are two givens here (1) someone on defense thought it was a runner, and 2) umpire considered it sufficient to rule interference), and one contradiction (running hard but just jogging), even without considering which part was a typo.

The rule (and note) cited suggests it "MAY" be interference; that is the judgment part of the rule. If the umpire believes the defense was decoyed when there WAS another play, it is a rule that needs to be enforced. No, it isn't automatic; but I'm NOT here to challenge the judgment, we were asked what is the rule and how does it apply?

As to the suggested contradiction on DMC, I can only tell you that the Note cited specifies that D3K "play" as an exception that cannot be considered as a decoy under the cited rule, even when we know it is. The time-honored explanation is that while players can be decoyed unreasonably during a "heat of the moment" play, it is simply "coaching" to teach a catcher when the dropped (uncaught) third strike rule applies, and when it doesn't. It is a relatively simple matter for a coach to remind the catcher (yes, even a 10U catcher) with two strikes when it applies and when it doesn't; while players would more often react to the sight of runners in the middle of a live play.

That would be some decoy with runners on 2nd & 3rd and one out, on a caught fly ball to F8, for it not to be DMCF to think she had a play on an advancing runner at 2nd ... BUT, if you take the OP at face value and the BR was jogging back to 2nd, then yes, I can see INT without a doubt ... She could be tricked into her having a play on a runner who left without tagging up.

[PDad]

The defense should already know that the runner was out. Before the pitch there were runners on 2nd and 3rd. Why would there be a live runner going to second.

And.... she ran hard rounding second and slowed down as she approached 2nd, same as jogging.

Bottom line, I don't like the call. Common sense was not used, rather an umpire was out there showcasing his knowledge of the ASA book and wanted the world to know he knew the book inside and out.

I often see some umpires approach players and coaches advising them of violations so that all can learn; this is not what this umpire on HGH was doing. It was a friendly

Some thoughts:
- Just because the defense could/should know better doesn't excuse the retired batter from potentially violating a rule in a case like this.

- FWIW, I dislike players continuing to run after they know it's a foul ball or they're out. It's often a self-indulgent dog-and-pony show that wastes time.

- I like umpires that call games based on their thorough knowledge of the rules and how they are to be applied. You're welcome to all the ones that don't know the rules, decide on their own which rules to enforce and/or substitute their "common sense" for the rules.

Hopefully your coaches and players learned something about the rules from this call.