Traffic jam at home

[Richvee]

R1 R2. Batter hits one down the RF line for extra bases. R1 is faster than R2, and both come around third about 15 feet apart. Throw comes home as R2 is crossing the plate, too late to make a play on R2, but there could be a play on R1. Here's where it got interesting. The throw moved F2 a little to the right (about 2-3 feet 3BLX)  R2 is easing up as he touches home and takes maybe one, two steps past home and stops to avoid running straight into F2. Now, R1 is close behind, slides in, and as F2 turns to try to put a tag on R1, he comes up with nothing but a face full of R2 who stopped.

INT on R2 for stopping after touching home and hindering F2's play on R1?

OBS on F2 for being 1-2 feet 3BLX without the ball as R2 crossed the plate? 

Nothing? (which would be the same result as OBS) 

Thoughts?  

[maven]

So first, let's rule out OBS. Once R2 scores, he is no longer a runner. Since only runners can be obstructed, R2 cannot possibly be obstructed at this point. That ain't it.

INT by a scored/retired runner is a good possibility here. Once R2 scores, he no longer is entitled to a path or space (we just concluded that he can't be hindered). His position is governed by the rule that says such scored/retired runners must vacate any space needed by the defense for a play (there's one in each code). Note that the rule penalizes failing to vacate the area, not failing to try to vacate the area (see FED 3-2-3 for instance): trying to get out of the way (but failing) isn't good enough for a scored/retired runner.

Someone (I'm looking at you, coach) might suggest that R2 has simply "continued to run the bases," which is explicitly NOT INT and permissible by rule. But R2 scored: he has no more bases to run. That provision cannot be applied to excuse his hindrance as it might for runners put out at other bases.

This is a judgment call, and I did not see the play. If F2 bumps R2 the moment after he touches the plate, it's probably nothing. But if R2 runs through the plate and hinders F2, I've probably got INT. That call is HTBT.

The OHC will whinge about his runner needing to "disappear," but the answer is: no, he doesn't have to disappear, but he cannot hinder the fielder making a play on the other runner. Had he successfully vacated the space required by the defense, it would be nothing.

[Richvee]

To try to give you a better picture, R2 was easing up before crossing the plate. There was going to be no play on him. Pretty much at the moment F2 fielded the throw on 3BLX is when R2 touched the plate. R2 touched the plate, to at most one full step and stopped, like one would do as if running and coming to the edge of a cliff to keep from falling off, but in this case it was to avoid running into F2 after touching home. If R2 would have taken 2 steps past home he would have contacted F2.  R2 had just come to a complete stop without contacting F2 when F2 caught the throw and turned into R2 trying to make the tag at home on R1. (OBR by the way)

I called it nothing. Obviously the defense had a problem with my (non) call. I didn't make a snap judgement. I knew what I saw, knew it was odd, and tried to take as much time as I possibly could to re-run the play over in my head and figure out what I saw and what to call. My final decision to call nothing  was based on my judgement that R2 didn't have space to touch home and veer to either side to avoid F2. I felt he did the only thing he could do avoid contact with F2. One of the strangest plays I've ever seen. 

[maven]

Sounds awfully tight. My point in emphasizing that this is a judgment call is that, without video, we have to defer to you on the call.

For me, I'd be thinking more about time than space: you write, "R2 didn't have space to touch home and veer to either side to avoid F2." But I'm more concerned about the time element: if R2 is still on the plate when F2 contacts him, then, as I say, it's probably nothing. If he has time to vacate and step aside, then he has to do so, and he's responsible for negligently failing to do so. His momentum, his path, etc. are all irrelevant to that key consideration.

In that way, this call is a bit like batter INT with R3 trying to score. If R3 is trying a straight steal, the batter has no time and cannot possibly vacate the area before the play, and the rule doesn't require him to do so. But on a passed ball, he does have to vacate the area needed by the defense, and it's INT if he fails to do so (whether he tries and fails or does not even try).

If R2 has time to clear out, then he must. That's why I say the call turns more on time than space. Perhaps that's what you meant though. Very tight call.

[conbo61]

It sounds like you did a pretty good job with this.

The fact that the runner stopped to avoid a collision is a key factor in a no call.

[Richvee]

Maven, by your reply, I think if you saw the play, you would agree with my call then. Think of when you're running and stop short and almost lose your balance falling forward. It was at this point, R2 had stopped short of contact the F2, but before he completely regained his balance, is when  F2 turned into him trying to get to the plate for the tag.