Question on interference on runner after scoring

[The Man In Blue]

I had a play, a runner on first, the ball got away from the catcher and rolled to the opening of the third base dugout, (did not go in dugout) the runner on first ran to second, a girl at the dugout opening (the batter's team) picked up the ball and threw it back to the pitcher, would you consider that blocked ball?.....WOuld the runner that took 2nd base be awarded 3rd base?......I left her at 2nd.

WARNING: RABBIT HOLE.

The rules are written in an interesting manner, such that there are cases where an offense by a team could benefit them with the penalty as written. At what point does an umpire go rogue and overrule the penalty for something?

Last weekend we had an offensive team who left their gate open and, of course, the ball went through and I awarded bases accordingly. Later, my partner said "I should have thought about that a little more. We shouldn't have rewarded them for leaving that gate open." (He is a retired NCAA umpire, so he wasn't a schlep like me.)

My response was "We didn't, we penalized the defense for failing to keep the ball on the field."

I see his point, but the rules don't state "unless it benefits the offending team." I agree with the concept, but I have problems with overriding the rulebook. Thoughts?

 

[flash277]

Lol...the "brain cramp" rule should be added to 12U and below. I once saw the on-deck batter for another team chase down a wild throw and hand it to the catcher. From a practical standpoint, not only did she not interfere, she actually helped the defense!

Yep, it was a middle school game, I told the girl to not handle any loose balls next time.

 

[The Man In Blue]

 

[EdLovrich]

WARNING: RABBIT HOLE.

The rules are written in an interesting manner, such that there are cases where an offense by a team could benefit them with the penalty as written. At what point does an umpire go rogue and overrule the penalty for something?

Last weekend we had an offensive team who left their gate open and, of course, the ball went through and I awarded bases accordingly. Later, my partner said "I should have thought about that a little more. We shouldn't have rewarded them for leaving that gate open." (He is a retired NCAA umpire, so he wasn't a schlep like me.)

My response was "We didn't, we penalized the defense for failing to keep the ball on the field."

I see his point, but the rules don't state "unless it benefits the offending team." I agree with the concept, but I have problems with overriding the rulebook. Thoughts?

You aren't rewarding the offense at all. You are barely penalizing the defense. I hate to say it but I bet you know it is coming, the umpires were at fault on this for not being aware the gate was open and killing the ball until it was closed

 

[eddieq]

We had a discussion at a clinic about NOT saying “it hit her in the box”

 

[EdLovrich]

We had a discussion at a clinic about NOT saying “it hit her in the box”

DOH!

 

[sprtfan]

Thought I was done but found a copy of the USSSA rule book and found this about interference. The example was an on deck hitter, but thought it might apply

NOTE: When the interference is with a thrown ball, the ball is dead and
the runner closest to home is declared out. If no play is obvious, no player
is out, but runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of
interference.

Would this mean that if the thrown ball hit the player that recently scored while the runner was between 3B and home, as long as there was no obvious chance to get the runner out at home, the runner would still need to be returned to 3B?
This seems a little off to me and feel like I'm missing something. What would keep the 1B from throwing at the on deck hitter/base coach if they didn't have a play making the runner return to previous base? Thanks

 

[The Man In Blue]

If they are throwing at the on-deck hitter, the on-deck hitter is not interfering in any way, shape, or form ... and we likely are looking at a player who has chosen to remove herself from eligibility for the remainder of the contest.

I didn't go look at it yet, but keep in mind that players have very specific statuses. An on-deck hitter and a retired runner may not be treated the same depending on the rule being discussed.

 

[eddieq]

If they are throwing at the on-deck hitter, the on-deck hitter is not interfering in any way, shape, or form ... and we likely are looking at a player who has chosen to remove herself from eligibility for the remainder of the contest.

True. If there was no play in that direction and it's clear that a player was just throwing at a coach/on-deck batter/retired runner then once play is completed, we will need a substitute for that particular player.

Another thread discussed the whole "runner has to move out of the way on a double play attempt" thing. Slow pitch heroes love to say they will just drill a runner in the face between first and second to get the interference call. Same thing. If they were not attempting to retire the trailing runner and were simply trying to hit a runner to get an interference call (which you'll know it if you see it) Slow Pitch hero will spend the remaining part of the game in the parking lot.

 

[Long Baller]

The thing I have noticed on this site lately is that people seem to be thinking in literals and absolutes more than ever before. The notion seems to be that if two players touch each other, then "There must be either interference or obstruction called!" If a ball touches someone or something, then "There must be interference somewhere, not sure where but there has to be!" "The rules say so!" I have seen people making some rather illogical arguments to these points in other threads. I think people aren't considering the difference between a "ball in play" vs a "play being made."