intervening play

[grozzly]

hello USA !! 

A question about intervening play. R3, less than 2 outs. Runner stealing home on the pitch, the batter hits a poor grounder in front of the catcher. While the catcher picks up the ball, R3 scores. Catcher throws to first but BR within the 3-foot lane and the throw hits him in the back and the umpire calls an interference. Does the run score ? The fact that R3 stole home is considered as an intervening play or not ? Thanks ^^

[maven]

IIRC, you work exclusively with OBR there. So I'm guessing that you're asking about this paragraph (OBR 6.01(a) PENALTY):

Quote

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 batter- runner is called out for interference outside the three-foot lane, the runner is safe and the run shall count. (Definition of Terms (Interference) Comment)

The situation you describe is not an "intervening play" for this penalty, because it is not a play, in the sense of a bona fide attempt to retire a runner. In that sense, there was no play on R3 (it was too late), so the exception to the PENALTY does not apply. Send R3 back.

You didn't ask about FED, but someone might wonder: all INT, including RLI, is TOI for FED, so R3's run should score here.

[MadMax]

Less than 2 outs? Run scores, as the B batted a live ball, ruled fair, into the field of play and a play was made on it. As R3 committed no interference on the play, and crossed / touched the plate prior to the Time of BR's Interference (RLI), the run (or advancement, if R2 to 3B and achieves it) stands.

2 outs? Run does not score.

R3 did not touch home? Ball is Dead at Time of Interference, therefore R3 cannot go back to validly touch the plate while the ball is dead, thus he's subject to being called out on valid appeal by the defense, and the run removed.

------------------------------ This ^ was posted prior to reading @maven's citation ----------------------

EDIT (after reading maven's post): I knew that "truth" about Fed, that all Interference is TOI, and it's crucial to the forthcoming ruling / judgement as to if runners touch / achieve the bags/plate they are attempting. I did not get that interpretation from that passage (not that it's wrong). So as the situation as stated goes, R3 is going back to 3B? If the F2 had, in the course of scooping up the ball, took a feeble swipe at the R3, and then thrown on to 1B – is that interpreted any different?

[GreyhoundAggie]

Interesting, I would have screwed this up in a game. Thanks for the clarification.

[noumpere]

49 minutes ago, MadMax said:

@maven

took a feeble swipe at the R3,

For OBR and NCAA:

 

If the umpire judges this to be a play (and the definition of "play" has been posted here many times before), then this becomes an intervening play as R3 returns TOI --so in this instance, he scores.

If the umpire judges this not to be a play (even if F2 originally thought about "going after" R3), then it's not an intervening play and R3 returns TOP.

 

 

[Larry in TN]

Why is it RLI when the BR was within the running lane?

 

[MadMax]

31 minutes ago, Larry in TN said:

Why is it RLI when the BR was within the running lane?

Because the umpire called it. The umpire judged it to be Interference, and we're discussing the peripherals / fallout of this play as called. We (as baseball participants) can't do anything about it, regardless if the umpire interpreted interference correctly or not (it would read, as presented, that he didn't).

[maven]

1 hour ago, Larry in TN said:

Why is it RLI when the BR was within the running lane?

 

Larry, I'd guess that @grozzly meant to say the BR was outside the lane. English is more foreign to him than to most on this board.

[maven]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

For OBR and NCAA:

If the umpire judges this to be a play (and the definition of "play" has been posted here many times before), then this becomes an intervening play as R3 returns TOI --so in this instance, he scores.

If the umpire judges this not to be a play (even if F2 originally thought about "going after" R3), then it's not an intervening play and R3 returns TOP.

Right: and to be a play in this situation, F2 must make a bona fide attempt to retire R3. That's judgment, of course, but swiping at a runner who is already 5 feet beyond HP is not a play (no chance to retire the runner), nor is a "feeble swipe" when F2 had to go halfway to the mound to field the batted ball (not really an attempt).

[noumpere]

Agreed.  But it IS judgment.  And, if the umpire judges that a runner in the lane commits RLI, s/he might also be one to judge a feeble swipe from halfway to the mound at a runner who was 5 feet beyond HP to be a play. 

 

 

[grozzly]

3 hours ago, Larry in TN said:

Why is it RLI when the BR was within the running lane?

 

Because i'm french and i should have said "outside" !!!

[grozzly]

Thanks guys ! very helpful ! as usual....^^

[grayhawk]

4 hours ago, maven said:

IIRC, you work exclusively with OBR there. So I'm guessing that you're asking about this paragraph (OBR 6.01(a) PENALTY):

The situation you describe is not an "intervening play" for this penalty, because it is not a play, in the sense of a bona fide attempt to retire a runner. In that sense, there was no play on R3 (it was too late), so the exception to the PENALTY does not apply. Send R3 back.

You didn't ask about FED, but someone might wonder: all INT, including RLI, is TOI for FED, so R3's run should score here.

Except FPSR.

[Larry in TN]

39 minutes ago, grozzly said:

Because i'm french and i should have said "outside" !!!

Thank you.  That makes sense, now.

(I can't even keep the french words for "30" and "40" straight when watching Roland Garros!)

 

[maven]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Except FPSR.

True, though we could make the case that FPSR is its own thing, a kind of INT+, with a range of unique provisions and criteria that don't apply to any other kind of INT.

[maven]

2 hours ago, Larry in TN said:

(I can't even keep the french words for "30" and "40" straight when watching Roland Garros!)

Oh that's easy: the former has one and the latter two syllables en français!

[noumpere]

5 hours ago, Larry in TN said:

Thank you.  That makes sense, now.

(I can't even keep the french words for "30" and "40" straight when watching Roland Garros!)

 

It's similar with a couple of other words:

 

Bigamy:  Having one wife too many.

 

Monogamy:  Same thing.

[maven]

On 2/24/2017 at 0:29 PM, maven said:

You didn't ask about FED, but someone might wonder: all INT, including RLI, is TOI for FED, so R3's run should score here.

 

On 2/24/2017 at 5:02 PM, grayhawk said:

Except FPSR.

Now I remember why I treat FPSR as its own thing and not a kind of INT. The key concept with INT is hindrance: no hindrance = no INT.

But hindrance is not necessary for FPSR, as when R1 slides through 2B and contacts F6 beyond the base after the ball has gone. There's no hindrance there, but we would still enforce the penalty for FPSR even without hindrance.

[conbo61]

On 2/24/2017 at 5:37 PM, Larry in TN said:

Thank you.  That makes sense, now.

(I can't even keep the french words for "30" and "40" straight when watching Roland Garros!)

 

Who does he play for?