Appeal play and interference

[James Walker]

We had a mini clinic today. When I asked for questions, these two situations came up.

First sitch, 1 out, bases loaded and BR hits a HR. R1 misses second and is out on appeal. One guy said that only two runs score because since R1 didn't occupy second, the BR is out for passing another runner.

Second sitch, runner on third with 1 out. Ball is hit to F3, and BR interferes with him. I know you get the out on the BR, but what to do with R3? I said send them back to third, because at the interference, the ball is dead and R3 can not advance, but I'm starting to second guess myself.

So I need a little help. This is OBR btw.

[UmpJM]

James,

 

First sitch: "Some guy" doesn't know what he's talking about. Score 3.

 

Second sitch": You are correct - BR is out, R3 returns to 3B.

 

JM

[noumpere]

We had a mini clinic today. When I asked for questions, these two situations came up.

First sitch, 1 out, bases loaded and BR hits a HR. R1 misses second and is out on appeal. One guy said that only two runs score because since R1 didn't occupy second, the BR is out for passing another runner.

Second sitch, runner on third with 1 out. Ball is hit to F3, and BR interferes with him. I know you get the out on the BR, but what to do with R3? I said send them back to third, because at the interference, the ball is dead and R3 can not advance, but I'm starting to second guess myself.

So I need a little help. This is OBR btw.

The first guy is creative.  Wrong, but creative.  He will have a good future as a coach. lol.

[James Walker]

JM,

Is this covered by 7.12?

[noumpere]

Yes, that's a good reference.

[Jocko]

Coach, I have your runner out for passing a ghost-runner. That's a 15 yard penalty with Technical foul free throws from CF. Automatic 1st down

[BalkHawk]

Coach, I have your runner out for passing a ghost-runner. That's a 15 yard penalty with Technical foul free throws from CF. Automatic 1st down

 

Wrong. Repeat second down.

[Jocko]

Coach, I have your runner out for passing a ghost-runner. That's a 15 yard penalty with Technical foul free throws from CF. Automatic 1st down

 Wrong. Repeat second down.Dang.... Well, that's why we are a crew. Get together/get it right. Nice catch.

[Called3rdStrike]

James,

 

First sitch: "Some guy" doesn't know what he's talking about. Score 3.

 

Second sitch": You are correct - BR is out, R3 returns to 3B.

 

JM

In the second situation, you have a B/R who interferes with a play after he's out. I've got B/R out on the play, and the runner closest to home out AKA R3

[tldavis19]

We had a mini clinic today. When I asked for questions, these two situations came up.

First sitch, 1 out, bases loaded and BR hits a HR. R1 misses second and is out on appeal. One guy said that only two runs score because since R1 didn't occupy second, the BR is out for passing another runner.

Second sitch, runner on third with 1 out. Ball is hit to F3, and BR interferes with him. I know you get the out on the BR, but what to do with R3? I said send them back to third, because at the interference, the ball is dead and R3 can not advance, but I'm starting to second guess myself.

So I need a little help. This is OBR btw.

I know we're in OBR here, but let me ask an FED question real quick on the first sitch. With one out R1 misses second and is out on appeal. 3 runs score and we have two outs, correct? I don't think FED has any stipulation on the BR passing another runner on an appeal. 

 

Now let me ask this. In FED lets run scenario 1 with 2 out. The appeal at second is a force play for the third out so therefore NO runs would score on a HR. Am I correct? if not correct me. If I'm understanding correctly if the appeal is a 3rd out on a force base then there's no timing and the runs can't score due to out #3 being a force out.

[clawdad]

James,

 

First sitch: "Some guy" doesn't know what he's talking about. Score 3.

 

Second sitch": You are correct - BR is out, R3 returns to 3B.

 

JM

In the second situation, you have a B/R who interferes with a play after he's out. I've got B/R out on the play, and the runner closest to home out AKA R3

The OP doesn't say that, though.  The way it reads is a ball hit to F3, and BR interferes with him. 

 

But what BR interferes with makes a difference: 

 

Interferencewith F3's fielding of the batted ball for the play on BR at 1st?                             BR out and R3 returns

Interference with F3's throw home to get R3 with no play initially being made on BR?          BR and R3 out

Interference with F3's throw home to attempt putout of R3 after BR out at 1st?                    BR and R3 out

 

Need more complete information on the situation to make the proper ruling

[Jocko]

Read the OP again. BR was out BECAUSE of the INT. He was not a retired runner who interfered.

[clawdad]

That was how I read it on its face.

 

After Called3rdStrike's reply though, I read more into the OP than what was there (I do that sometimes),  and that led me to come up with my situations. 

 

For discussion's sake:   Am I correct in that what the BR interferes with F3 doing could make a difference?  If so, are my suituations above ruled correctly?

[Called3rdStrike]

James,

 

First sitch: "Some guy" doesn't know what he's talking about. Score 3.

 

Second sitch": You are correct - BR is out, R3 returns to 3B.

 

JM

In the second situation, you have a B/R who interferes with a play after he's out. I've got B/R out on the play, and the runner closest to home out AKA R3 The OP doesn't say that, though.  The way it reads is a ball hit to F3, and BR interferes with him. 

 

But what BR interferes with makes a difference: 

 

Interferencewith F3's fielding of the batted ball for the play on BR at 1st?                             BR out and R3 returns

Interference with F3's throw home to get R3 with no play initially being made on BR?          BR and R3 out

Interference with F3's throw home to attempt putout of R3 after BR out at 1st?                    BR and R3 out

 

Need more complete information on the situation to make the proper ruling

I read the OP as a running lane violation after he had been retired.

But you are correct. The way the interference occurs matters.

[johnnyg08]

 

 

James,

 

First sitch: "Some guy" doesn't know what he's talking about. Score 3.

 

Second sitch": You are correct - BR is out, R3 returns to 3B.

 

JM

In the second situation, you have a B/R who interferes with a play after he's out. I've got B/R out on the play, and the runner closest to home out AKA R3 The OP doesn't say that, though.  The way it reads is a ball hit to F3, and BR interferes with him. 

 

But what BR interferes with makes a difference: 

 

Interferencewith F3's fielding of the batted ball for the play on BR at 1st?                             BR out and R3 returns

Interference with F3's throw home to get R3 with no play initially being made on BR?          BR and R3 out

Interference with F3's throw home to attempt putout of R3 after BR out at 1st?                    BR and R3 out

 

Need more complete information on the situation to make the proper ruling

I read the OP as a running lane violation after he had been retired.

But you are correct. The way the interference occurs matters.

 

 

I don't think you can have runner's lane interference, unless intentional, on a play at home plate from F3.  Unless I'm missing something in an earlier post.

[noumpere]

 

 

James,

 

First sitch: "Some guy" doesn't know what he's talking about. Score 3.

 

Second sitch": You are correct - BR is out, R3 returns to 3B.

 

JM

In the second situation, you have a B/R who interferes with a play after he's out. I've got B/R out on the play, and the runner closest to home out AKA R3 The OP doesn't say that, though.  The way it reads is a ball hit to F3, and BR interferes with him. 

 

But what BR interferes with makes a difference: 

 

Interferencewith F3's fielding of the batted ball for the play on BR at 1st?                             BR out and R3 returns

Interference with F3's throw home to get R3 with no play initially being made on BR?          BR and R3 out

Interference with F3's throw home to attempt putout of R3 after BR out at 1st?                    BR and R3 out

 

Need more complete information on the situation to make the proper ruling

I read the OP as a running lane violation after he had been retired.

But you are correct. The way the interference occurs matters.

You can't have running lane interference on a throw FROM first only on a throw TO first, and intent doesn't matter on a running lane interference call either way.

 

Yes, the specific play matter.  And the first and third of the above sitiuations seem correct; thee second one might need a little more explanation (for example was a double play possible, or likely; maybe intent matters here, etc.).

 

These rules are (at least approximately) the same in all codes -- the one differenc is on the DP situation, but in practice they are often rules the same way.

[James Walker]

Okay, on the second sitch, its a hit and run. BR interferes with F3 attempting to retire him. BR is out and R3 returns to third. Correct?

Now let's say BR interfered after he was put out... Ie on the throw to attempt to retire R3 at the plate. R3 is out also correct?

[UmpJM]

You certainly COULD get two outs in the sitch - as Called3rdStrike suggests, if the BR had already been retired at the time of his interference, you would also call out the other runner; or, if the umpire judged that the BR INTENTIONALLY interfered to break up a double play, then you would call both runners out as well. All codes.

 

However, neither of those cases was part of the OP, so James Walker's ruling of BR out, R3 returns was correct.

 

JM

[Called3rdStrike]

 

 

James,

 

First sitch: "Some guy" doesn't know what he's talking about. Score 3.

 

Second sitch": You are correct - BR is out, R3 returns to 3B.

 

JM

In the second situation, you have a B/R who interferes with a play after he's out. I've got B/R out on the play, and the runner closest to home out AKA R3

The OP doesn't say that, though.  The way it reads is a ball hit to F3, and BR interferes with him. 

 

But what BR interferes with makes a difference: 

 

Interferencewith F3's fielding of the batted ball for the play on BR at 1st?                             BR out and R3 returns

Interference with F3's throw home to get R3 with no play initially being made on BR?          BR and R3 out

Interference with F3's throw home to attempt putout of R3 after BR out at 1st?                    BR and R3 out

 

Need more complete information on the situation to make the proper ruling

I read the OP as a running lane violation after he had been retired.

But you are correct. The way the interference occurs matters.

 

 

I don't think you can have runner's lane interference, unless intentional, on a play at home plate from F3.  Unless I'm missing something in an earlier post.

R3. Ball hit to first base. f3 steps on first the nails the retired B/R running outside the running lane.

Wouldnt that be interference?

If he was within the runners lane is he protected if he's hit with the return throw

[NFUA_44]

Running lane INT applies to the play going into first, when F3 is receiving a throw.  If F3 made a play and stepped on first to retire BR and then went to throw home he's like any other fielder, he has to find a lane to make the throw.  The now retired BR would have to do "something else" showing intent to have interference.  The lane has nothing to do with it, it is strictly whether the retired runner did something to interfere with F3's throw to F2 at the plate.

[noumpere]

R3. Ball hit to first base. f3 steps on first the nails the retired B/R running outside the running lane.

Wouldnt that be interference?

If he was within the runners lane is he protected if he's hit with the return throw

Good god, no.  It's been explained a couple of times in the most recent posts.  It's no different than F6 hitting R1 on the way to second.  It must be intentional to be called, and the running lane has nothing to do with it.

[clawdad]

in my second example, I pictured something like this:  BR hits to F3.  F3, for whatever reason, doesn't try to get the BR out (Why? I don't know. But I guess it's plausible).  Instead, F3 throws home and BR interferes by sticking his hand out to interrupt the throw.

[Called3rdStrike]

R3. Ball hit to first base. f3 steps on first the nails the retired B/R running outside the running lane.

Wouldnt that be interference?

If he was within the runners lane is he protected if he's hit with the return throw

Good god, no.  It's been explained a couple of times in the most recent posts.  It's no different than F6 hitting R1 on the way to second.  It must be intentional to be called, and the running lane has nothing to do with it.

That makes sense. Not sure what I was thinking.

[noumpere]

in my second example, I pictured something like this:  BR hits to F3.  F3, for whatever reason, doesn't try to get the BR out (Why? I don't know. But I guess it's plausible).  Instead, F3 throws home and BR interferes by sticking his hand out to interrupt the throw.

That's still not enough information.  Was a double play obvious / likely?  Different codes have different words here.

 

Based just on the description, I don't think it was so BR out, R3 returns but if a double play was likely / obvious then get both outs.

[clawdad]

The discussion can only help make us better. I know it would be a stretch for any F3 to do this, but....

 

The double play would have been obvious and/or likely, but F3 decided not to even make an attempt to get the out on the BR (by taggging BR, or stepping on 1B, ar any other way).  F3 just didn't go for an out on the BR, instead he made the throw home to try and get R3.    I think I agree with you - no double play attempt even though it was the easy/smart play, and interference by BR on the throw home.  BR out and R3 goes back.

 

I appreciate the input.