I'm in your camp on this one.? The real question comes down to whether the
runner who scored is entitled to remain on the field to direct following
runners.? If someone has the right to be on the field, interference has to be
intentional.? If he shouldn't be there (e.g., a defensive coach outside of the
dugout) intent doesn't play into it.? I say?directing the following runner is a
time honored tradition and baseball is a game that respects tradition.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: ladyblue2140 <ladyblue214@...>
To: llumpires@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 1:48 am
Subject: [llumpires] Re: Interference?








You said the throw was offline.

I don't see why the defense should be bailed out on a bad throw.

One reason the interference has to be intentional.

Rita

--- In llumpires@yahoogroups.com, MichaelWmWalsh@... wrote:
>
> After a runner scored, he set up on the 3rd base extended line to
> direct a following runner to stay up or slide. The throw to F2 was
> off-line and hit the runner who had scored. He was attempting to avoid
> the throw but couldn't get out of the way. I had the plate and did not
> consider it interference, but later my partner insisted that, unlike a
> base coach, he had no right to be there and it would be interference if
> he affected the play. Well, if so, it would have to be dead
> immediately, before seeing if the play was affected, but I cannot find
> any support in the rules. What do you think? Thanks.
>
> Mike
>








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]