Interference on Rundown

[grayhawk]

This is from Harry's Weekly Rules Review on the Wendelstedt site.  Thought it was a good one.

 

R1, R3, one out. R3 is caught in a rundown. During the rundown, R1 advances to second, and then to third. As R3 is returning back to third, he interferes with third baseman. What is the ruling?

[hogsfan787]

OBR: R3 Out and R1 back to 2nd because R3 is in a rundown

[BigUmp56]

R3 is called out and R1 is returned to 2nd base.

 

 

If, in a run-down between third base and home plate, the succeeding runner has advanced and

is standing on third base when the runner in a run-down is called out for offensive interference, the

umpire shall send the runner standing on third base back to second base. This same principle applies if

there is a run-down between second and third base and succeeding runner has reached second (the reasoning

is that no runner shall advance on an interference play and a runner is considered to occupy a

base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base).

 

 

 

Tim.

[Richvee]

the reasoning

is that no runner shall advance on an interference play...

 

Does R1 even get to stay @2nd? 

[grayhawk]

the reasoning

is that no runner shall advance on an interference play...

Does R1 even get to stay @2nd?

He goes back to the base he occupied at TOI. Since R3 still legally occupied third, even though R1 was standing in third at TOI, then R1's legally occupied base at TOI was 2nd.

[Richvee]

 

the reasoning

is that no runner shall advance on an interference play...

Does R1 even get to stay @2nd?

He goes back to the base he occupied at TOI. Since R3 still legally occupied third, even though R1 was standing in third at TOI, then R1's legally occupied base at TOI was 2nd.

 

I thought so. Just the wording there made me second guess myself to think maybe it's TOP on offensive INT

[UmpJM]

BTW,

 

FED, in it's infinite wisdom, issued a case play a couple of years ago that reversed this fundamental principle of what it means to "...occupy a base..." - at least in a FED game.

 

In FED, the R1 would properly remain at 3B. (Hey, I don't make 'em, I just try to know what they are.)

 

JM

[BigUmp56]

BTW,

 

FED, in it's infinite wisdom, issued a case play a couple of years ago that reversed this fundamental principle of what it means to "...occupy a base..." - at least in a FED game.

 

In FED, the R1 would properly remain at 3B. (Hey, I don't make 'em, I just try to know what they are.)

 

JM

All because FED umpires are too dumb to possibly understand that a runner cannot legally occupy a base that is still legally occupied by a preceding runner.......

Tim.

[catsbackr]

If R3 is being played on in the rundown, how did he interfere?

[grayhawk]

If R3 is being played on in the rundown, how did he interfere?

This was a hypothetical from the Wendelstedt site, but I envisioned R3 slapping at ball and knocking out of the fielder's glove or waiving his arms and knocking the ball away.

[Richvee]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I was thinking about the TOI call last night and came up with something that now has me wondering...

 

Let's say R3, R1 no outs.  Squeeze play. Ball is bunted.  R1 misses the sign, isn't stealing on the pitch. R3 scores by the time F2 gets to the ball. F2 fires to F6 for the force @2nd, and R1 interferes with F6. FPSR. R3 scored before any play @2nd. 

 

Does the run count? 

[noumpere]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I was thinking about the TOI call last night and came up with something that now has me wondering...

 

Let's say R3, R1 no outs.  Squeeze play. Ball is bunted.  R1 misses the sign, isn't stealing on the pitch. R3 scores by the time F2 gets to the ball. F2 fires to F6 for the force @2nd, and R1 interferes with F6. FPSR. R3 scored before any play @2nd. 

 

Does the run count? 

Runners return TOP on an FPSR violation in both HS and college rules.