How Would You Handle This?

[Mad Mike]

How would you handle this?

NFHS

Bases Loaded, 2 outs, high pop fly to short-stop. Runners going on contact. R2 clips shortstop. Umpire rules interference; however, R3 had crossed plate before interference was called. 

I have a group that is giving different answers: Timing Play (score the run), R2 forced to advance and interferes (thus treat as force out on the interfering runner) no run scores, or no run can score on interference-ball is dead--call interfering runner out, inning over with no runs scoring. If there were less than 2 out, return all runners TOP--call interfering runner out, BR goes to first.

What is the best rule reference for this situation?

[Jimurray]

6 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:

How would you handle this?

NFHS

Bases Loaded, 2 outs, high pop fly to short-stop. Runners going on contact. R2 clips shortstop. Umpire rules interference; however, R3 had crossed plate before interference was called. 

I have a group that is giving different answers: Timing Play (score the run), R2 forced to advance and interferes (thus treat as force out on the interfering runner) no run scores, or no run can score on interference-ball is dead--call interfering runner out, inning over with no runs scoring. If there were less than 2 out, return all runners TOP--call interfering runner out, BR goes to first.

What is the best rule reference for this situation?

Before I put my thinking cap on I’m looking for an easy out. How could R3 score before the TOI which was not when it was called. It was when it happened. 

[scrounge]

What is their rationale for a timing play? A forced runner made the third out before attaining the base to which he was forced to advance. 

[Richvee]

Why would it be any different than R2 interfering with a ground ball to F6? R2 out, runners return TOP. Inning over. No run. Can't benefit the offense for causing interference. I don't think the force matters either. R2 and R3,I have the same thing. No run.

[Replacematt]

20 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Why would it be any different than R2 interfering with a ground ball to F6? R2 out, runners return TOP. Inning over. No run. Can't benefit the offense for causing interference. I don't think the force matters either. R2 and R3,I have the same thing. No run.

It's not TOP in FED. It's TOI.

[Richvee]

28 minutes ago, Matt said:

It's not TOP in FED. It's TOI.

R1, R3. 2 outs. Full count. R1 takes off on the pitch. High pop to F6, R3 jogs home before R1 rounds 2B and bumps F6 preventing him from catching the popup. Score the run in FED????

[jms1425]

8-4-2

ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

...

b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases; or

1. A runner may slide in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making ­contact or altering the play of the fielder.

2. Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2) Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.

PENALTY: The runner is out. Interference is called and the ball is dead immediately. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. With two outs, the runner is declared out. The batter is credited with a fielder's choice.

[maven]

11 hours ago, jms1425 said:

PENALTY: The runner is out. Interference is called and the ball is dead immediately. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. With two outs, the runner is declared out. The batter is credited with a fielder's choice.

You're quoting the penalty for FPSR violations, which does indeed return runners to their TOP bases.

But this play is not an FPSR violation, it's garden-variety runner INT. As Matt points out, for FED all (regular) runner INT returns runners to their TOI bases.

This case is close but not exactly the OP, and no runs may score.

Quote

*8.4.2 SITUATION D: All bases are occupied with no outs when B4 hits a ground ball to F4 and R1 collides with him as he is fielding the ball.

RULING: The ball became dead when interference occurred. R1 is declared out. If the umpire rules that F4 could have executed a double play, then the umpire shall declare two outs (the runner who interfered, and the other runner or batter-runner involved). If the umpire rules that only one runner could have been put out, then only R1 is out. No runs may score and all other runners shall return to bases occupied at the time of interference.

I can't see how R3 might have scored before R2 interfered with F6 fielding the batted ball. Any tiny shred of doubt goes to the defense here (send all runners back).

[jms1425]

I thought the "or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play " was making a distinction between a FPSR situation and other situations, but I guess I misread it. I can't find the provision in the rule book for TOI, though I see it here in the case book citation. Is it in the rules somewhere?

[jms1425]

Nevermind.... 6-2-g

[maven]

12 hours ago, Richvee said:

R1, R3. 2 outs. Full count. R1 takes off on the pitch. High pop to F6, R3 jogs home before R1 rounds 2B and bumps F6 preventing him from catching the popup. Score the run in FED????

I'm pretty sure that foot hadn't quite touched the plate at TOI.

[Tborze]

Could we have an advantageous fourth out here?  R2 interferes so he is out as well as B6, and we know no runs can score when...

[maven]

28 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Could we have an advantageous fourth out here?  R2 interferes so he is out as well as B6, and we know no runs can score when...

A fourth out is a retouch or missed base appeal that is granted and thereby affects the score. Do we have the potential for such an appeal in this play?

[Tborze]

15 minutes ago, maven said:

A fourth out is a retouch or missed base appeal that is granted and thereby affects the score. Do we have the potential for such an appeal in this play?

No.

I came across 8.4.2E and admit it was a reach

Tks for clarifying! 

[maven]

For those without the FED casebook handy (and who haven't memorized it), 8.4.2E rules on a case of runner INT that prevents a double play, and it rules out both the interfering runner and the BR: the BR would have been out on the (hindered, prevented) catch, and R3 would have been out on appeal (failure to retouch), so both are called out to penalize R3's INT.

Had that play occurred with 2 outs, we could not call a double play. No 4th out is possible there because no appeal actually occurred.

[Richvee]

4 hours ago, maven said:

I'm pretty sure that foot hadn't quite touched the plate at TOI.

We agree there. 

[Mister B]

To address the second part, with less than 2 outs, I would think we'd have an infield fly. Don't know how to handle to INT on that. 

[grayhawk]

To address the second part, with less than 2 outs, I would think we'd have an infield fly. Don't know how to handle to INT on that. 

Double play. BR out on the IFF and R2 out for interference.

[maven]

18 hours ago, scrounge said:

What is their rationale for a timing play? A forced runner made the third out before attaining the base to which he was forced to advance. 

In fact, at least for FED, R2's INT with 2 outs is not a force out!

Quote

A force-out is a putout during which a runner who is being forced to advance is tagged out, or is put out by a fielder who holds the ball while touching the base toward which the forced runner is advancing (9-1-1 for special case.) 2-24-1

The "special case" referenced in this definition is a (missed base) appeal which, when granted, will count as a force-out when the runner was forced to the missed base.

Being called out for INT thus does not satisfy the definition of a force-out, so a run would not be disallowed for that reason. Maybe that's an oversight, but that's what the definition entails.

I posted 8.4.2D above, which states that "no run may score" without explaining why (in that play, as in this one, the INT surely happened before the run scored, so we'd send the runners back). But the reasoning should not (by the definitions anyway) be that the third out was a force-out.

 

[Replacematt]

So, if I'm reading this correctly...

All of us feel that this run shouldn't count. However, there's not a rule that we can hang a hat on to justify that.

[maven]

6 hours ago, Matt said:

So, if I'm reading this correctly...

All of us feel that this run shouldn't count. However, there's not a rule that we can hang a hat on to justify that.

Well the rule—runners return to TOI bases—covers the OP just fine. No run will score because R3 has to go back.

It's the TWP, fortunately, that seems to fall in the gap.

[Replacematt]

21 minutes ago, maven said:

Well the rule—runners return to TOI bases—covers the OP just fine. No run will score because R3 has to go back.

It's the TWP, fortunately, that seems to fall in the gap.

In the OP, TOI means the run scores.

[MadMax]

On 5/8/2018 at 5:18 PM, Mad Mike said:

Bases Loaded, 2 outs, high pop fly to short-stop. Runners going on contact. R2 clips shortstop. Umpire rules interference; however, R3 had crossed plate before interference was called.

Your online cohorts are being incredibly obtuse. It’s painfully obvious... with two outs, and the batted ball being a pop fly to an infielder, we can take this perspective – what would the result have been had no Interference occurred? A caught fly ball, for the third out, right? Thus, because BR never reached first, no runs scored.

Take your OP pop-fly and put it over Foul Territory, with R1 Interfering with F3 (Say F3 was playing off the bag, and R1 clipped him as he went after it in Foul Territory). What would we have if no Interference occurred? A caught fly ball, once again. Let’s go a step further... say there was no Interference, and the ball drops to the ground. Do we score R3 because he crossed the plate before the ball hit the ground Foul? No, that would be ridiculous. So why is the OP any different?

When there is Interference against a fielder attempting to catch a fly ball, it is implied or assumed that the ball was caught, regardless of the actual physical outcome after Interference occurred or was called.

[grayhawk]

8 hours ago, maven said:

In fact, at least for FED, R2's INT with 2 outs is not a force out!

The "special case" referenced in this definition is a (missed base) appeal which, when granted, will count as a force-out when the runner was forced to the missed base.

Being called out for INT thus does not satisfy the definition of a force-out, so a run would not be disallowed for that reason. Maybe that's an oversight, but that's what the definition entails.

I posted 8.4.2D above, which states that "no run may score" without explaining why (in that play, as in this one, the INT surely happened before the run scored, so we'd send the runners back). But the reasoning should not (by the definitions anyway) be that the third out was a force-out.

 

I have been told by a state interpreter that a forced runner who is called out for abandonment is a force out.  Not really covered in the definition, but that's what he said.

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, MadMax said:

Your online cohorts are being incredibly obtuse. It’s painfully obvious... with two outs, and the batted ball being a pop fly to an infielder, we can take this perspective – what would the result have been had no Interference occurred? A caught fly ball, for the third out, right? Thus, because BR never reached first, no runs scored.

 

Of course BR reached first -- he was LOB.  That''s what the scorebook says, and it's the only way to "prove" the scorebook (well, unless the rule is changed so BR is out on this type of INT instead of the runner involved).

I agree with your conclusion, just not with this line of reasoning.