Runner interference with catcher

[Guest Scott B]

A runner attempting to score from third base on a squeeze play. The pitched ball is bunted and pops the ball up in the air in the vicinity of the plate. The batter-runner advances toward first base and the runner advancing from third base slides across the plate and incidental contact with the catcher occurs while the catcher is attempting to field the ball. The ball is not fielded and it drops harmlessly into foul territory. What have we got?

[maven]

There is seldom such a thing as "incidental contact" between a runner (other than the BR) and a fielder. It is almost always either INT or OBS.

In this instance, as the contact occurs as a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball, R3 is guilty of runner INT. We leave it live to determine fair/foul: in this instance, it seems to have been a foul ball.

The result will depend on whether R3 had scored prior to the INT. If the INT happened first: R3 out, batter returns to the box with a strike added to his count unless he had 2 strikes (treat it as an ordinary foul ball). If R3 scored before the INT: the run counts, and the BR is out for his teammate's INT.

[Rich Ives]

7 minutes ago, Guest Scott B said:

A runner attempting to score from third base on a squeeze play. The pitched ball is bunted and pops the ball up in the air in the vicinity of the plate. The batter-runner advances toward first base and the runner advancing from third base slides across the plate and incidental contact with the catcher occurs while the catcher is attempting to field the ball. The ball is not fielded and it drops harmlessly into foul territory. What have we got?

Foul ball.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, maven said:

There is seldom such a thing as "incidental contact" between a runner (other than the BR) and a fielder. It is almost always either INT or OBS.

In this instance, as the contact occurs as a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball, R3 is guilty of runner INT. We leave it live to determine fair/foul: in this instance, it seems to have been a foul ball.

The result will depend on whether R3 had scored prior to the INT. If the INT happened first: R3 out, batter returns to the box with a strike added to his count unless he had 2 strikes (treat it as an ordinary foul ball). If R3 scored before the INT: the run counts, and the BR is out for his teammate's INT.

Just thinking out loud here.....

R3's interference prevents an obvious doubleplay.I understand under OBR, we need intent to get two on INT, but not in FED. Even if R3 had scored, his interference prevented an obvious double play. Would FED dictate a double play here?

 

[Rich Ives]

5 hours ago, maven said:

There is seldom such a thing as "incidental contact" between a runner (other than the BR) and a fielder. It is almost always either INT or OBS.

In this instance, as the contact occurs as a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball, R3 is guilty of runner INT. We leave it live to determine fair/foul: in this instance, it seems to have been a foul ball.

The result will depend on whether R3 had scored prior to the INT. If the INT happened first: R3 out, batter returns to the box with a strike added to his count unless he had 2 strikes (treat it as an ordinary foul ball). If R3 scored before the INT: the run counts, and the BR is out for his teammate's INT.

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)
Comment): A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a
fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out
whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base
when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in
the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on
fair or foul territory, is intentional.

Home plate is a base. Can't have a different rule here.

[Jimurray]

5 hours ago, maven said:

There is seldom such a thing as "incidental contact" between a runner (other than the BR) and a fielder. It is almost always either INT or OBS.

In this instance, as the contact occurs as a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball, R3 is guilty of runner INT. We leave it live to determine fair/foul: in this instance, it seems to have been a foul ball.

The result will depend on whether R3 had scored prior to the INT. If the INT happened first: R3 out, batter returns to the box with a strike added to his count unless he had 2 strikes (treat it as an ordinary foul ball). If R3 scored before the INT: the run counts, and the BR is out for his teammate's INT.

It seems to be a foul ball so how could a run score? I agree with @Rich Ives. Once in contact with the base I can't picture unintentional interference being called. Once sliding thru the base I can't picture interference being called on a retired or scored runner continuing to run the bases, ie: normal baserunning per Wendelstedt. Except we still have a batted ball so if R3 lost contact with HP we might then have interference by a teammate.

[Stk004]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)
Comment): A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a
fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out
whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base
when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in
the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on
fair or foul territory, is intentional.

Home plate is a base. Can't have a different rule here.

I believe the correct rule here is (6.01) (a) (7.09) (5) 

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. 

[noumpere]

13 hours ago, maven said:

There is seldom such a thing as "incidental contact" between a runner (other than the BR) and a fielder. It is almost always either INT or OBS.

In this instance, as the contact occurs as a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball, R3 is guilty of runner INT. We leave it live to determine fair/foul: in this instance, it seems to have been a foul ball.

The result will depend on whether R3 had scored prior to the INT. If the INT happened first: R3 out, batter returns to the box with a strike added to his count unless he had 2 strikes (treat it as an ordinary foul ball). If R3 scored before the INT: the run counts, and the BR is out for his teammate's INT.

If it was a foul ball, R3 couldn't score, so only the first pat of you sentence above applies to this play.

11 hours ago, Richvee said:

Just thinking out loud here.....

R3's interference prevents an obvious doubleplay.I understand under OBR, we need intent to get two on INT, but not in FED. Even if R3 had scored, his interference prevented an obvious double play. Would FED dictate a double play here?

 

Yes -- and there's a case play to this effect (I think the bunt was to the third base side).  Look in the first handful of cases under 8.4.2

[Jimurray]

11 hours ago, Stk004 said:

I believe the correct rule here is (6.01) (a) (7.09) (5) 

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. 

You have to read the comment to that rule also. The kicker here is the fielder is fielding a batted ball. If a retired runner slides legally into 2B and takes out a fielder fielding a thrown ball or in the act of throwing he is not guilty of interference by that act alone. If a runner stealing on the pitch ends slides into 2B as F6 gets under a high pop-up and tangles up F6 and the ball drops is the runner guilty of INT? Is 2B his now legally occupied base?

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

You have to read the comment to that rule also. The kicker here is the fielder is fielding a batted ball. If a retired runner slides legally into 2B and takes out a fielder fielding a thrown ball or in the act of throwing he is not guilty of interference by that act alone. If a runner stealing on the pitch ends slides into 2B as F6 gets under a high pop-up and tangles up F6 and the ball drops is the runner guilty of INT? Is 2B his now legally occupied base?

Well, he can't legally occupy first...

[noumpere]

17 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Rule 6.01(a) Penalty for Interference Comment (Rule 7.08(b)
Comment): A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a
fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out
whether it was intentional or not.
If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base
when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in
the umpire’s judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on
fair or foul territory, is intentional.

Home plate is a base. Can't have a different rule here.

Somewhere there's an interp that the meaning of "a legally occupied base" means "the runner's original base."  IOW, the runner is protected because if he was made to leave that base, he'd be doubled off.  So, protect him on that base.

[Stk004]

22 hours ago, maven said:

There is seldom such a thing as "incidental contact" between a runner (other than the BR) and a fielder. It is almost always either INT or OBS.

In this instance, as the contact occurs as a fielder is attempting to field a batted ball, R3 is guilty of runner INT. We leave it live to determine fair/foul: in this instance, it seems to have been a foul ball.

The result will depend on whether R3 had scored prior to the INT. If the INT happened first: R3 out, batter returns to the box with a strike added to his count unless he had 2 strikes (treat it as an ordinary foul ball). If R3 scored before the INT: the run counts, and the BR is out for his teammate's INT.

I felt like maven had it right here in the beginning. Are we saying this is the correct ruling or no? 

[maven]

1 hour ago, Stk004 said:

I felt like maven had it right here in the beginning. Are we saying this is the correct ruling or no? 

My last sentence is misleading, as it does not apply to the foul ball in the OP. In the OP, we should have INT.

Had the ball ended up fair and R3 interfered after scoring, then that last sentence would have applied.

Otherwise, I think you're right.

[Stk004]

30 minutes ago, maven said:

My last sentence is misleading, as it does not apply to the foul ball in the OP. In the OP, we should have INT.

Had the ball ended up fair and R3 interfered after scoring, then that last sentence would have applied.

Otherwise, I think you're right.

So if the ball is foul, as in the OP, but R3 crosses the plate before interfering, what do we have? 

[maven]

2 hours ago, Stk004 said:

So if the ball is foul, as in the OP, but R3 crosses the plate before interfering, what do we have? 

We have a runner interfering with a fielder attempting to catch a pop foul. Once determined to be foul, the ball is dead, R3 is out, the batter returns to the plate with a strike added (unless he has 2 strikes). R3 crossing the plate is moot due to the foul ball.

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, maven said:

We have a runner interfering with a fielder attempting to catch a pop foul. Once determined to be foul, the ball is dead, R3 is out, the batter returns to the plate with a strike added (unless he has 2 strikes). R3 crossing the plate is moot due to the foul ball.

Unless it's FED in which case both R3 and BR are out.  Both answers given already up above.