Just A Crazy Hypothetical: Interference

[Guest NJ Coach]

I'm not an ump, but a fellow spectator asked me this yesterday just for fun.   Some derivation of this was probably asked here previously.

Bases loaded two out...suicide squeeze.  hitter bunts ball fair yet it rolls back toward the plate as stealing R3 slides safely.   The ball rolls into R3 who is already lying across the plate, just having slid, preventing the catcher from fielding it cleanly and potentially throwing to another base for the force out.

Run count ?

How about with just one out ?

Other implications ?

 

[Rich Ives]

26 minutes ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

I'm not an ump, but a fellow spectator asked me this yesterday just for fun.   Some derivation of this was probably asked here previously.

Bases loaded two out...suicide squeeze.  hitter bunts ball fair yet it rolls back toward the plate as stealing R3 slides safely.   The ball rolls into R3 who is already lying across the plate, just having slid, preventing the catcher from fielding it cleanly and potentially throwing to another base for the force out.

Run count ?

How about with just one out ?

Other implications ?

 

Play the bounce.

[Gfoley4]

If the ball touches R3 in fair territory before he touches home plate, that's interference and he's out. B/R gets first base everyone else returns. If the runner had already scored and the ball touches him, it's nothing unless he intentionally bats it away or does something more than have the ball simply touching him. That would apply under OBR rule 6.01(5) - retired runner interference

[Rich Ives]

And he had already scored in the play presented. Play the bounce

[ofhs93]

I'm calling the BR out. He touched the Ball in fair territory A base is not a haven. This includes while he is standing on a base. The bases are in FAIR territory. If he is hit in fair territory, while on the base, before the ball has passed an infielder, he is out, except if he is hit by an infield-fly.

A play is not immediately over when the player crosses home correct?? It's the runners duty to avoid a ball hit in fair territory...that includes at home plate.

And to be clear....I'm fully prepared to be corrected and reprimanded lol.

[LRZ]

OBR 6.01(a)(5): "It is interference by a batter or a runner when . . . 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. . . ." Why would this not apply? Unlike 6.01(a)(2), this section does not include the word "intentionally." Is there an interpretation or ruling that says differently?

[maven]

13 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

If the runner had already scored and the ball touches him, it's nothing unless he intentionally bats it away or does something more than have the ball simply touching him. That would apply under OBR rule 6.01(5) - retired runner interference

You've cited the correct rule — 6.01(a)(5) — but I think you're reading it wrong. The answer turns on whether the case falls under the basic criterion in the rule (hindrance) or the exception (continues to advance).

The rule states, "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." IIRC Wendelstedt has been interpreting this rule strictly, so that it does NOT require intent. The situation involves a batted ball, where the fielder has right of way: even unintentional hindrance will count as INT in this situation.

This is the OBR provision with the "continues to advance" exception, however, so some judgment is required. If R3 hinders F2 just by being there — and it sounds from the OP as if that might be so — then the case falls under the exception, so no INT.

OTOH, if R3 does anything else — not necessarily with intent to hinder — that hinders F2, he is liable to lose the exception and fall under the basic criterion prohibiting hindrance. That would be INT.

[LRZ]

The 6.01(a) Comment, entitled "Penalty for Interference," states, "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." So intent is not required because it is the BR who is out, not R3? Does the Comment apply to all the (a) provisions, unless intent is specified, e.g., 6.01(a)(2)?

By its plain language, does the 6.01(a)(5) "continued to advance" Comment apply to runners who have just scored? It reads, "If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered" to have hindered. Is there an interpretation expanding this application?

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, ofhs93 said:

I'm calling the BR out. He touched the Ball in fair territory A base is not a haven. This includes while he is standing on a base. The bases are in FAIR territory. If he is hit in fair territory, while on the base, before the ball has passed an infielder, he is out, except if he is hit by an infield-fly.

A play is not immediately over when the player crosses home correct?? It's the runners duty to avoid a ball hit in fair territory...that includes at home plate.

And to be clear....I'm fully prepared to be corrected and reprimanded lol.

You're right that the play isn't over -- but R3 is no longer a "runner" in the sense meant by this rule.

 

It might still be INT, but it's not for being hit by a fair batted ball in fair territory.

[ofhs93]

11 minutes ago, noumpere said:

You're right that the play isn't over -- but R3 is no longer a "runner" in the sense meant by this rule.

 

It might still be INT, but it's not for being hit by a fair batted ball in fair territory.

Ok...in that instance lets ask this question....if there were 2 outs as has been stated....and the BR interferes with the catchers ability to play the ball...and...if the catcher cleanly fields the ball and gets the out at any other base, then a force was made for the 3rd out and the run does not score.....so...the player really has NOT yet scored because the play is taking place and force outs still exist at all of the other bags....the play isn't complete/run doesn't score if the 3rd out is made on a force. Either way, I have either BR hit by ball in fair or I have BR INT...both of which make him out.

 

Again...if I'm wrong please smack me down which is no doubt coming very shortly from Maven lol 

 

I guess my point is this...if there were 2 outs and the BR's action created a situation where F2 was no longer able to make a play on the ball (which would normally be playable) and could lead to the 3rd out....then I'm looking at INT...out #3...run does not score.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, ofhs93 said:

I'm calling the BR out. He touched the Ball in fair territory A base is not a haven. This includes while he is standing on a base. The bases are in FAIR territory. If he is hit in fair territory, while on the base, before the ball has passed an infielder, he is out, except if he is hit by an infield-fly.

A play is not immediately over when the player crosses home correct?? It's the runners duty to avoid a ball hit in fair territory...that includes at home plate.

And to be clear....I'm fully prepared to be corrected and reprimanded lol.

The B/R may indeed be out, but not for these reasons.

R3 isn't a runner anymore, he's a scored runner, so the ball hitting him is irrelevant from the batted ball perspective.

However, if he hinders the catcher's ability to make a play on BR (or any other runner) then that runner can be called out.

 

I think...

 

[Stk004]

8 minutes ago, ofhs93 said:

Ok...in that instance lets ask this question....if there were 2 outs as has been stated....and the BR interferes with the catchers ability to play the ball...and...if the catcher cleanly fields the ball and gets the out at any other base, then a force was made for the 3rd out and the run does not score.....so...the player really has NOT yet scored because the play is taking place and force outs still exist at all of the other bags....the play isn't complete/run doesn't score if the 3rd out is made on a force. Either way, I have either BR hit by ball in fair or I have BR INT...both of which make him out.

 

Again...if I'm wrong please smack me down

The BR didn't do anything, R3 did. So calling out the BR for INT he committed isn't feasible. 

Maven presents an interesting idea with the "continuing to advance" principle, but I believe LRZ makes an excellent clarification in that a runner that has just been put out is permitted to continue running the bases, within reason. There's no similar provision for a runner that has just scored, but we do have 6.01(a)(5) that clearly demands an out for any runner who has just scored hindering a play being made on another runner. It sounds like we have a clear case of R3 hindering F2 after R3 scored, so we would call the BR out for the interference of his teammate.

[beerguy55]

14 minutes ago, ofhs93 said:

the player really has NOT yet scored because the play is taking place and force outs still exist at all of the other bags

He is a scored runner until that occurs.  The BR making the third out before first base then negates the run. Likewise, a player who misses home plate (or any other base on his way to home) and then goes to the bench has scored, and is a scored runner.  The run will be negated if/when a proper appeal is made.  But until then he's a scored runner.

[ofhs93]

8 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

The BR didn't do anything, R3 did. So calling out the BR for INT he committed isn't feasible. 

Maven presents an interesting idea with the "continuing to advance" principle, but I believe LRZ makes an excellent clarification in that a runner that has just been put out is permitted to continue running the bases, within reason. There's no similar provision for a runner that has just scored, but we do have 6.01(a)(5) that clearly demands an out for any runner who has just scored hindering a play being made on another runner. It sounds like we have a clear case of R3 hindering F2 after R3 scored, so we would call the BR out for the interference of his teammate.

Sorry....I meant R3...not the BR/Batter...I would have R3 for INT by either hindering F2 or being hit by a fair ball....that's just the way I would call it at this time...until I see a compelling argument otherwise....I like Wendy's strict interpretation that Maven mentions.

 

And yes...That's where I would be going in this case...the "scored" runner having hindered F2s ability to make a play on the ball.

[ofhs93]

BTW....Nice topic brought up by our OP here

[Gfoley4]

2 hours ago, maven said:

You've cited the correct rule — 6.01(a)(5) — but I think you're reading it wrong. The answer turns on whether the case falls under the basic criterion in the rule (hindrance) or the exception (continues to advance).

The rule states, "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." IIRC Wendelstedt has been interpreting this rule strictly, so that it does NOT require intent. The situation involves a batted ball, where the fielder has right of way: even unintentional hindrance will count as INT in this situation.

This is the OBR provision with the "continues to advance" exception, however, so some judgment is required. If R3 hinders F2 just by being there — and it sounds from the OP as if that might be so — then the case falls under the exception, so no INT.

OTOH, if R3 does anything else — not necessarily with intent to hinder — that hinders F2, he is liable to lose the exception and fall under the basic criterion prohibiting hindrance. That would be INT.

this play is obviously a bit different, but probably the closest play to the OP that I've seen in MLB. Obviously Pierre was ruled out as he was not continuing to advance, but where do we draw the line? Is simply sliding down on home plate and then hindering the catcher fielding as he lays there "continuing to advance"? 2 steps away? The 5 steps Pierre gets to? 

 

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, ofhs93 said:

I'm calling the BR out. He touched the Ball in fair territory A base is not a haven. This includes while he is standing on a base. The bases are in FAIR territory. If he is hit in fair territory, while on the base, before the ball has passed an infielder, he is out, except if he is hit by an infield-fly.

A play is not immediately over when the player crosses home correct?? It's the runners duty to avoid a ball hit in fair territory...that includes at home plate.

And to be clear....I'm fully prepared to be corrected and reprimanded lol.

Once he's scored he is no longer a runner. Can't be out for being hit by a air ball.

[ofhs93]

2 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Once he's scored he is no longer a runner. Can't be out for being hit by a air ball.

Thus moving on to INT due to hindering F2.

[ofhs93]

8 minutes ago, Gfoley4 said:

this play is obviously a bit different, but probably the closest play to the OP that I've seen in MLB. Obviously Pierre was ruled out as he was not continuing to advance, but where do we draw the line? Is simply sliding down on home plate and then hindering the catcher fielding as he lays there "continuing to advance"? 2 steps away? The 5 steps Pierre gets to? 

 

Why is it that EVERY announcer uses the WRONG terminology EVERY time this comes up??? Lol....he corrects himself afterwards but they always use the wrong term initially

[maven]

1 hour ago, Stk004 said:

Maven presents an interesting idea with the "continuing to advance" principle, but I believe LRZ makes an excellent clarification in that a runner that has just been put out is permitted to continue running the bases, within reason. There's no similar provision for a runner that has just scored, but we do have 6.01(a)(5) that clearly demands an out for any runner who has just scored hindering a play being made on another runner. It sounds like we have a clear case of R3 hindering F2 after R3 scored, so we would call the BR out for the interference of his teammate.

True, a scored runner is different from a retired runner in that he cannot "continue to run the bases," but then again, a retired runner cannot really "continue to run the bases" either. The rationale for the exception is that we don't expect a retired runner to disappear, so we allow him to remain legally on the field and not be liable for INT just for being there or continuing to move. That's why the qualification, "by that act alone" is part of the exception. And the same rationale applies to a scored runner: the rules set the same bar for INT for retired/scored runners.

The clip of Pierre's collision with Buck is instructive: Pierre is guilty of INT precisely because he did not merely exist or continue running: he collided with Buck. The collision, not merely his presence, constituted the INT.

[LRZ]

8 minutes ago, maven said:

And the same rationale applies to a scored runner: the rules set the same bar for INT for retired/scored runners.

You are rewriting the 6.01(a)(5) Comment, despite the language clearly addressing only batters and runners continuing to advance after being put out. If the drafters of the rules wanted to apply the same principle to runners who have just scored, it would have been a simple matter to add such a provision; the fact that they did not is, in my view, significant.

[maven]

If the rules makers were always clear, consistent, and comprehensive, then I'd agree with you.

As it is, we have to interpret based on all available information, including the rationale for a rule.

[beerguy55]

5 hours ago, LRZ said:

You are rewriting the 6.01(a)(5) Comment, despite the language clearly addressing only batters and runners continuing to advance after being put out. If the drafters of the rules wanted to apply the same principle to runners who have just scored, it would have been a simple matter to add such a provision; the fact that they did not is, in my view, significant.

No, it's not significant, it's contextual.

Any runner that has passed home plate can't "advance".

The context is a retired runner can still advance, not only geometrically, but also simply because he may not realize he is out, or as a contingency to an apparent out being overturned (eg. neighborhood play at second base on a force).

A scored runner can not advance in any context - he can retreat (if he missed a base), or he can return to the dugout.

The underlying point, as stated, is the mere presence of a scored or retired runner isn't hindrance by default (although there is going to be a very low threshold) -  neither a retired runner nor a scored runner are expected to teleport to the dugout instantly - though that would be cool.

[MT73]

 Ok so--in the play where R3 crashed into F2..

If it had been two outs who would have been called out--R3 or the B/R?

And if the B/R was out would the run have scored?

[maven]

31 minutes ago, MT73 said:

 Ok so--in the play where R3 crashed into F2..

If it had been two outs who would have been called out--R3 or the B/R?

And if the B/R was out would the run have scored?

If you're asking about the MLB clip:

1. There were in fact 2 outs
2. Your question suggests you're thinking of some batter INT-like penalty, but this is not batter INT.
3. R3 has scored: he cannot be put out or called out (any code, with the exception of one play in one code).
4. The BR is out for R3's retired/scored runner INT. The BR was between 1B and 2B at TOI, so he had already touched 1B: that makes this a time play, and the run scores.
5. Had there been more runners, probably the lead runner gets called out for R3's INT, and it's still probably a time play.

[ofhs93]

1 hour ago, maven said:

If you're asking about the MLB clip:

1. There were in fact 2 outs
2. Your question suggests you're thinking of some batter INT-like penalty, but this is not batter INT.
3. R3 has scored: he cannot be put out or called out (any code, with the exception of one play in one code).
4. The BR is out for R3's retired/scored runner INT. The BR was between 1B and 2B at TOI, so he had already touched 1B: that makes this a time play, and the run scores.
5. Had there been more runners, probably the lead runner gets called out for R3's INT, and it's still probably a time play.

  Let's go back to the original posted question though. What *if* we had legit INT on R3's part as he came home...and there are 2 outs. Obviously the INT will have occurred before the BR reaches 1st. No more timing play then in *my* interpretation....BR is out before he reached 1st...run does not score. I guess my personal way of handling this whole scenario would be that the threshold for INT by R3 is going to be *very* low if I deem the bunt by BR to be eminently playable by F2....which, in the case that R3 makes contact with the ball on the plate, that threshold has more than likely been met.