Coach Carl

The out at first is not a force out, so the run counts. A force occurs as a result of the batter becoming a runner. R1 was forced to 2B until the ball was caught. After the catch, he is no longer forced to 2B (or back to 1B). He is, however, liable to be out on appeal for leaving the base before the fly ball was caught. So, the throw back to first is an appeal for leaving early (they could also tag him). Since the rules allow him to correct his error before the appeal, you get the action of the runner trying to beat the throw to the base. That looks similar to a force play, but is not.

I see now that I was conflating your general statement of principle as a criticism of how you thought that the umpires ruled in the actual situation.

Per the play by play on the Virginia website, the runners were not returned: https://virginiasports.com/boxscore/18676 You have to navigate to play by play. It was in the 6th inning.

The umpire pointed at the bench player and made a safe signal so I presume it was a ruled foul. The first fielder (#5) seems to reach into the dugout unimpeded but he misjudged the location by a few feet. The second fielder seems to have never gotten to the point of reaching over the railing at all. It even appears that he was still a step away when the ball hit the bench player's shoulder and then he falls into the railing.

As I read the rule I see the logic as such: Rule: Runners return TOI Exception: If BR has not yet reached first, runners return TOP. I did not see it as being important that the BR was out (to satisfy 5.08(a) exception), only that the runners are placed based on his position when the interference occurred. The expected ruling on interference with an infielder is: (1) Runner is out, (2) BR is awarded 1B and (3) Other runners return unless forced. Once the BR has obtained 1B, we're now far enough along that other plays are possible and the TOI standard is applicable.

Did the BR reach first yet? See bold below. 6.01(a)(11) PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch; provided, however, if during an intervening play at the plate with less than two outs a runner scores, and then the batterrunner is called out for interference outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass, in running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, the runner is safe and the run shall count.

I would have no problem with you suspending the game until it can be resolved. If the tent and/or vehicle is not connected with either team, I am sure both teams can commandeer plenty of help to ask around until the offenders are located. Between coaches, players and their familes there must be at least 50 people available. It shouldn't take too long.

It is essentially a variation on skunk in the outfield. The offense is distracting the defense with R1 while trying to sneak R3 home. The same response is required: ignore him. However, due to the 60 foot basepaths, ignoring means allowing him to easily steal 2nd base. Unless you have a play ready to bait the runner from 3rd to try for home and then get him out, you are left with either letting him steal or trading the run for an out.

Thinking about it a little more, maybe the coach convinced the umpire that he said or did something to make them think that he was awarding the runner home (though nothing like that is apparent from the video).

I went and found it on ESPN. I don't have an obvious explanation. That looks protestable to me. Just don't listen to the announcer. "Free chance at the next base", ugh.

SWMBO might argue that pedantic and argumentative are synonyms. She is neither, so doesn't see the value in drawing the distinction.

He was trying to get you to admit that you saw the batter move because if he did, you pretty much have to call the INT. He probably had a better view than you did so maybe the batter did move his feet. On a steal everything at the plate happens fast. You may have still been processing the ball/strike judgement. Your eyes are 5-6 feet off the ground and the batters feet are 3-4 feet away. Who's looking down at the batter's feet at that point? And then, "ping", the ball hits the bat. In my mind, unless the batter's movement is obvious, I wouldn't expect that call.

My guess is that it is to give managers flexibility due to pitch count regulations. If you realize the pitcher will break a pitch count rule you have flexibility to remove him without breaking another rule. Also, if you are planning pitching for future games, you can pull him to prevent necessitating another rest day and making him inelibile for a future game.

Based on some of the videos I see on social media, the granting of "time" (or lack thereof) seems to generate a lot of angst. I point you to the rules. The umpires are given a list of reasons for which they may grant "time" (see OBR 5.12). None of the reasons listed is: "allow a runner an opportunity to stand up without being in jeopardy of being put out." By convention, umpires do grant "time" in those types of situations (and several others), even though they are are not listed in 5.12. However, the default position of the game should be for the ball to be live. When a runner is granted time, nothing can happen until the pitcher has the ball on the rubber, the catcher is ready to receive the pitch and the batter is in the box ready to go (the plate umpire can't point "play" until all these conditions are met). Any opportunity for the offense to advance or the defense to get an out is wiped away. Due to this, umpires should take their time in calling "time". Is play relaxed? Is it really necessary? etc. In your situation, it is reasonable to expect a runner to "climb up" without leaving contact with the base in order to get ready for the next play. He shouldn't need "time" in order to do so. Many umpires will grant it, but it should not be expected. And in all cases of asking for "time", players and coaches should be taught to wait until it is granted before doing anything that could result in a bad outcome.

The coach wasn't trying to help him return to or leave the base, so looks like there's no assist call to make.