First time I've ever seen this one

[Doug63]

13U's...FED rules...1 out..runners on 2nd and 3rd...pitcher in wind-up position...both runners break toward their respective bases...pitcher starts painfully slow delivery...batter squares to bunt..as runner from 3rd slides across home batter bunts ball straight down into runner who's now lying on home plate..???

[Jimurray]

10 minutes ago, Doug63 said:

13U's...FED rules...1 out..runners on 2nd and 3rd...pitcher in wind-up position...both runners break toward their respective bases...pitcher starts painfully slow delivery...batter squares to bunt..as runner from 3rd slides across home batter bunts ball straight down into runner who's now lying on home plate..???

Wow, real time I’m discombobulated. Recovering, that’s a runner hit by a fair batted ball. He’s out and batter gets 1B. Return R2 to 2B if he advanced in the play. 

[Stk004]

Just now, Jimurray said:

Wow, real time I’m discombobulated. Recovering, that’s a runner hit by a fair batted ball. He’s out and batter gets 1B. 

The runner has already scored though, hasn't he? 

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, Stk004 said:

The runner has already scored though, hasn't he? 

Yes, I’m up for discussion 

[Stk004]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

Yes, I’m up for discussion 

I am too. My initial instinct says "fair ball, play on" but then I thought "this would probably be interference," so honestly I don't know off the top of my head. @Doug63 , what actually happened on the field? 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 BRD (section 514, pp. 329-330): 

FED Official Interpretation:  Rumble:  A runner who has scored but is guilty of interference with a batted ball keeps his run but causes a teammate to be out.

OBR Official Interpretation:  Deary:  The umpire will cancel a legally scored run if the runner who has scored is guilty of interference with a fair batted ball after crossing the plate.

[MadMax]

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Rumble:  A runner who has scored but is guilty of interference with a batted ball keeps his run but causes a teammate to be out.

So is this the Batter-Runner? If it is the Batter-Runner, and there were 2 Outs, does the run still score? 

[Jimurray]

17 minutes ago, MadMax said:

So is this the Batter-Runner? If it is the Batter-Runner, and there were 2 Outs, does the run still score? 

Good question. Conflicting rulings from not current FED and OBR authorities with no current ruling from any of the three codes. 

[scrounge]

This actually happened as well in a varsity game in our area last year - it's on youtube even!. It went all the way up to NFHS, who said that since the runner had indeed scored, couldn't get him out but the batter/runner is out on the interference.

The ball was bunted and bounced off the sliding runner's back.

https://youtu.be/C1_kcF6R364

As to what if there were 2 outs? I'd say that since the third out was made before the B/R made it to first, no run. But that's just my opinion.

[Vegas_Ump]

4 hours ago, scrounge said:

This actually happened as well in a varsity game in our area last year - it's on youtube even!. It went all the way up to NFHS, who said that since the runner had indeed scored, couldn't get him out but the batter/runner is out on the interference.

The ball was bunted and bounced off the sliding runner's back.

https://youtu.be/C1_kcF6R364

As to what if there were 2 outs? I'd say that since the third out was made before the B/R made it to first, no run. But that's just my opinion.

I think your instincts are correct!  If--on the play--the batter or batter-runner is retired IN ANY MANNER before he legally attains first base for the third out, no runs score.

Also got to ask under the FED ruling above, if R3's run scores OK, WHICH teammate is out?  Do you get to choose R2 (being the next closest runner to home) or the batter?

 

Mike

Las Vegas

 

[Stk004]

Okay, I think I'm ready to provide an answer to this situation. @Senor Azul , what is "Deary" in the OBR interp, out of curiosity? 

I'm going to talk in terms of OBR. I realize the OP and the video are Fed, and while I'm familiar with Fed rules, I'm much more comfortable and familiar using OBR. If anyone finds something that explicitly goes against what I say in the Fed book, please let me know. 

The way I see it, there's two possible arguments for interference. First, a runner (who has already scored) being touched by a fair batted ball. Second, a runner that has just scored interferes with the defense (namely F2) making a play on another runner. 

1. There's nothing in OBR about a runner that has just scored being touched by a fair batted ball. OBR 5.09(b)(7) says that a runner is out for interference when he is touched by a fair ball in fair territory. However, in our scenario the runner has already scored, so HE cannot be called out for being touched by a fair batted ball. This rule does not provide for the batter being called out for a runner being touched by a fair ball (In fact, "normally" the batter is awarded first base), so we cannot have any outs for interference based on this rule. 

2. OBR 6.01(a)(5) says it is interference by a batter or runner when any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate. This is a very valid argument. F2 was undoubtedly hindered by R3 deflecting the ball away from where it would have otherwise hit the ground. Until the last year or so, I would say the batter runner should be called out for the interference of his teammate (R3) under this rule, specifically for hindering the defense's ability to make a play. HOWEVER, MLB has made it painstakingly obvious that the comment to this rule shall be strictly followed. It states: 

Rule 6.01(a )(5) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to
advance or returns or attempts to return to his last legally touched
base after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be
considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

R3 was simply continuing to advance by sliding, and he did nothing else to constitute interference. Based on this comment, and MLB's strict enforcement of the comment, we cannot call interference based on this rule either. 

As a result, I have no interference by R3, allowing R3 to score and the defense and the batter runner should play on. 

[yawetag]

1 hour ago, Stk004 said:

Okay, I think I'm ready to provide an answer to this situation. @Senor Azul , what is "Deary" in the OBR interp, out of curiosity?  

Deary (maybe Barney Deary? I don't have my book in front of me) was the person who gave the interp.

Before your post, @Stk004, I was on the INT fence. You've now placed me on the nothing fence. It seems wrong to give the "that's nothing" to it (and you'd better sell the crap out of it), but it seems to be the right call.

@Senor Azul, I'm not near the BRD right now. What rules references does the section give? Also, I wonder if MLB would have a different interp with the new comment.

[Senor Azul]

This is the third time I have posted these two interpretations. I found them in the 2016 BRD which means to me that even though they are old they were still valid at that time. I would think that the play and the subsequent ruling from the NFHS that Mr. scrounge posted would confirm the interpretation for FED at the very least. Don’t you agree?

If that isn’t enough, I posted the following text in December 2018 which I think is more than enough to assure you that the FED interpretation is correct no matter how old it is.

2018 NFHS Rule 2

SECTION 30 RUN, RUNNERS, RETIRED RUNNERS

ART. 3 . . . A retired runner is a player of the team at bat who has been put out, or who has scored and is still in live-ball area.

The following text is from the 2016 BRD (section 462, p. 307): “The definition is of practical value…when a runner who has scored interferes with or maliciously crashes into a defensive player. The point: Interference by a runner who has scored is, by definition in FED, interference by a RETIRED RUNNER.”

 

[Senor Azul]

I originally posted the following text in December 2018--

Barney Deary was a director of PBUC, in other words, supervisor of minor league umpires. I mention that because in the original thread this interpretation was sneered at as something less than credible. This interpretation was listed in the 2014 BRD as being from a letter by Mr. Deary to the editor of Referee magazine in 1987. The objection was that the interpretation was too old and it was misconstrued as being from Referee magazine not from the director of minor league umpires.

 

[Rich Ives]

On 4/25/2019 at 11:42 PM, Doug63 said:

13U's...FED rules...1 out..runners on 2nd and 3rd...pitcher in wind-up position...both runners break toward their respective bases...pitcher starts painfully slow delivery...batter squares to bunt..as runner from 3rd slides across home batter bunts ball straight down into runner who's now lying on home plate..???

Batter is running poles for bunting the ball.

[beerguy55]

On 4/26/2019 at 6:36 AM, scrounge said:

This actually happened as well in a varsity game in our area last year - it's on youtube even!. It went all the way up to NFHS, who said that since the runner had indeed scored, couldn't get him out but the batter/runner is out on the interference.

The ball was bunted and bounced off the sliding runner's back.

https://youtu.be/C1_kcF6R364

As to what if there were 2 outs? I'd say that since the third out was made before the B/R made it to first, no run. But that's just my opinion.

Do you know if the description of the video is accurate - the poster states that the umpire called both R3 and B/R out.

I can understand  arguments for allowing or cancelling a run, for nobody out, for the batter out, for a runner out - but I can't fathom any line of reasoning that would justify calling two people out.   It's like he called R3 out for interference, and then kept the ball live and called B/R out because the defense got him out.

[scrounge]

On 5/3/2019 at 7:10 PM, beerguy55 said:

Do you know if the description of the video is accurate - the poster states that the umpire called both R3 and B/R out.

I can understand  arguments for allowing or cancelling a run, for nobody out, for the batter out, for a runner out - but I can't fathom any line of reasoning that would justify calling two people out.   It's like he called R3 out for interference, and then kept the ball live and called B/R out because the defense got him out.

The description is accurate. In fairness to them, they were in complete shock when it happened and everyone pretty much stopped. They did the best they could....and it turned into a learning opportunity for all of us when the question went up to NFHS

[lawump]

On 4/26/2019 at 2:01 PM, Stk004 said:

 what is "Deary" in the OBR interp, out of curiosity?

@Stk004 Barney Deary is one of the most important persons in the history of professional umpiring whom nobody, sadly, knows.

[conbo61]

On 4/26/2019 at 2:01 PM, Stk004 said:

Okay, I think I'm ready to provide an answer to this situation. @Senor Azul , what is "Deary" in the OBR interp, out of curiosity? 

I'm going to talk in terms of OBR. I realize the OP and the video are Fed, and while I'm familiar with Fed rules, I'm much more comfortable and familiar using OBR. If anyone finds something that explicitly goes against what I say in the Fed book, please let me know. 

The way I see it, there's two possible arguments for interference. First, a runner (who has already scored) being touched by a fair batted ball. Second, a runner that has just scored interferes with the defense (namely F2) making a play on another runner. 

1. There's nothing in OBR about a runner that has just scored being touched by a fair batted ball. OBR 5.09(b)(7) says that a runner is out for interference when he is touched by a fair ball in fair territory. However, in our scenario the runner has already scored, so HE cannot be called out for being touched by a fair batted ball. This rule does not provide for the batter being called out for a runner being touched by a fair ball (In fact, "normally" the batter is awarded first base), so we cannot have any outs for interference based on this rule. 

2. OBR 6.01(a)(5) says it is interference by a batter or runner when any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate. This is a very valid argument. F2 was undoubtedly hindered by R3 deflecting the ball away from where it would have otherwise hit the ground. Until the last year or so, I would say the batter runner should be called out for the interference of his teammate (R3) under this rule, specifically for hindering the defense's ability to make a play. HOWEVER, MLB has made it painstakingly obvious that the comment to this rule shall be strictly followed. It states: 

Rule 6.01(a )(5) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to
advance or returns or attempts to return to his last legally touched
base after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be
considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

R3 was simply continuing to advance by sliding, and he did nothing else to constitute interference. Based on this comment, and MLB's strict enforcement of the comment, we cannot call interference based on this rule either. 

As a result, I have no interference by R3, allowing R3 to score and the defense and the batter runner should play on. 

"Rule 6.01(a )(5) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance or returns or attempts to return to his last legally touched base after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders."

I understand this comment to address a situation where a runner continues to act as if he was NOT put out in an attempt to confuse the defense.  It puts the onus on the defense to understand the situation and not be "distracted."  In this situation, the interference is due to the path of the ball being altered so I am not sure that the comment applies.

It seems as if the Deary Interp is the accepted interpretation as far as OBR is concerned, so the run is nullified.  I would assume you then follow the conventional runner struck by batted ball protocol - R3 out, BR to first.