Jul 23, 2010 9:37 AM
Interference rule clarification
-
Like (0)
Rule 8-7B indicates that in the umpire's judgment, if the runner crashes into the fielder before being put out and in the judgment of the umpire, it was an attempt to break up an obvious double play, the immediate succeeding runner is also called out.
My question for this rule is does the umpire call the succeeding runner also out only if he thought there was time to get the double play if interference didn't occur or is he required to judge the intent of the base runner independent of whether the umpire thought there would have been time for a double play?
Similar question on Rule 8-7P. In this case the interference occurs after the interfering runner is put out but there is no mention of having to judge whether a double play would have been possible or not without the interference.
Does that mean that the base runner closest to home plate is also out automatically regardless of whether the umpire thought the double play would have been completed without the interference or does the obvious double play judgment apply here also?
Thanks.
Rule 8-7B indicates that in the umpire's judgment, if the runner crashes into the fielder before being put out and in the judgment of the umpire, it was an attempt to break up an obvious double play, the immediate succeeding runner is also called out.
My question for this rule is does the umpire call the succeeding runner also out only if he thought there was time to get the double play if interference didn't occur or is he required to judge the intent of the base runner independent of whether the umpire thought there would have been time for a double play?
Similar question on Rule 8-7P. In this case the interference occurs after the interfering runner is put out but there is no mention of having to judge whether a double play would have been possible or not without the interference.
Does that mean that the base runner closest to home plate is also out automatically regardless of whether the umpire thought the double play would have been completed without the interference or does the obvious double play judgment apply here also?
The rule states the act was that of interfering with the defender's opportunity to make a play on another runner. That would mean the umpire only needs to determine there was a play with which to interfere.
Irish, I did get those rules out of the ASA book. I have the 2008 book so don't know if there were any changes the next two years.
So let me get this straight. Are you saying if the runner interferes after he is put out, the runner closest to home is automatically out?
Under the situation where the runner interferes before he is put out, the umpire has to judge whether getting the double play would have been possible if the interference didn't occur and make the call accordingly?
Thanks.
CORRECTION ON 1ST POST: I wrote a wrong rule number. It should be 8-7J instead of 8-7B as per 2008 ASA Rule Book. 8-7Q is a runner crashing into a fielder without another play attempted by the fielder.
Irish, I did get those rules out of the ASA book. I have the 2008 book so don't know if there were any changes the next two years.
So let me get this straight. Are you saying if the runner interferes after he is put out, the runner closest to home is automatically out?
Under the situation where the runner interferes before he is put out, the umpire has to judge whether getting the double play would have been possible if the interference didn't occur and make the call accordingly?
Okay, now we are back to the beginning. How is the runner interfering with the player? Does tha player have the ball or fielding an untouched batted ball?
Facebook
MySpace
YouTube
Twitter