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 ?

 

[noumpere]

I might be wrong, but it seems as though you are confusing R3 scoring on the play and then R3 not scoring because BR was out before first.  Just because R3's run doesn't COUONT, doesn't mean R3 hasn't "scored" for purposes of other baserunning rules.

[maven]

In the original play, the outs shouldn't matter to the judgment call: if R3 does something besides merely advance and score, then he's liable for INT. If he's just lying on the ground and the batted ball rolls into him, I've got nothing. He is not required by rule to disappear for the convenience of the defense.

If he commits INT before the BR touches 1B, and the BR is the runner called out for the scored runner INT, then no, the run won't count.

[stkjock]

13 minutes ago, maven said:

In the original play, the outs shouldn't matter to the judgment call: if R3 does something besides merely advance and score, then he's liable for INT. If he's just lying on the ground and the batted ball rolls into him, I've got nothing. He is not required by rule to disappear for the convenience of the defense.

If he commits INT before the BR touches 1B, and the BR is the runner called out for the scored runner INT, then no, the run won't count.

such as going to stand up from a slide?  as he doesn't realize that he's between the  batted ball and F2

 

To add a wrinkle to the discussion:

- if the bunt is further into the field, who would you protect?  F1, F2, a crashing F3 or F5??  

[MT73]

That was my question.

2 outs.

Ground ball to short.

For some reason F 6 throws home but run scores.

R3 then interferes with F2 before B/R reaches first base.

PU calls interference--does this now negate the run?

[noumpere]

38 minutes ago, MT73 said:

That was my question.

2 outs.

Ground ball to short.

For some reason F 6 throws home but run scores.

R3 then interferes with F2 before B/R reaches first base.

PU calls interference--does this now negate the run?

Can a run ever score when BR makes the third out before reaching first?  No.

 

This situation is no different.

[maven]

2 hours ago, stkjock said:

such as going to stand up from a slide?  as he doesn't realize that he's between the  batted ball and F2

 

To add a wrinkle to the discussion:

- if the bunt is further into the field, who would you protect?  F1, F2, a crashing F3 or F5??  

1. It's going to depend: a runner can get up in order to hinder, and that's INT. Judgment call.
2. One fielder gets protection, generally the one most likely to make the play. That judgment can be made retroactively, and it can changed depending on what happens (weird spin, deflection, etc.).

[MT73]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

Can a run ever score when BR makes the third out before reaching first?  No.

 

This situation is no different.

Except that in interference runners keep the base they had at time of violation.

Does this change anything?

[maven]

9 minutes ago, MT73 said:

Except that in interference runners keep the base they had at time of violation.

Does this change anything?

R3 can "keep the base," at least in the sense that he didn't miss it and can't be appealed.

His run doesn't count by rule.

[noumpere]

43 minutes ago, MT73 said:

Except that in interference runners keep the base they had at time of violation.

Does this change anything?

No.

[Senor Azul]

The consensus seems to be that a runner who scores a run is then somehow exempt from most interference rules. If that is the case (even though there are no case plays, authoritative opinions, or official interpretations that support the assertion), why do the following interpretations exist?

From the 2016 BRD (section 514, pp. 329-330): 

FED:  A runner who has scored on a force play but is guilty of interference with a fielder nullifies his run. (2.32.2c; 8.4.2w)

Official Interpretation: Rumble:  A runner who has scored but is guilty of INTERFERENCE WITH A BATTED BALL keeps his run but causes a teammate to be out. (News 3/92 #8)

OBR:  Official Interpretation:  Deary:  The umpire will cancel a legally scored run if the runner who has scored is guilty of interference with a fair batted ball after crossing the plate. (Letter to Tom Hammill, editor of Referee, 10/14/87)

 

[maven]

7 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

The consensus seems to be that a runner who scores a run is then somehow exempt from most interference rules.

I think you're misreading. The retired/scored runner INT rule is pretty clear: the only question is whether the exception applies in the OP. That's going to turn on a judgment call concerning whether the runner did anything "extra" besides just be lying in the plate area when the batted ball hit him.

As for the case plays: the FED play has limited application. 8.4.2W is a notorious play (and the "exception" I mentioned recently), and the only reason the run is canceled there is that it's a FPSR violation. Otherwise, INT after a score (that doesn't cause the third out) will allow the run to stand. In the OP, where R3 is forced, the run would not count if we ruled INT with a batted ball. But had R3 not been forced, it would have counted.

I had not seen the OBR ruling before, but the author is not authoritative (Referee? C'mon man!). I'd look for something (a) more recent, and (b) authoritative. Nothing in the OBR rule supports this interp, and I'd be surprised if Wendelstedt, who's generally pretty conservative on the rules, supported it.

[beerguy55]

13 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

The consensus seems to be that a runner who scores a run is then somehow exempt from most interference rules.

I would disagree with that assessment.

I think the consensus is that a runner who has scored (or more accurately, a runner who has acquired home base - plated runner?) is no longer a "runner", and thus not subject to the rules assigned to runners or batter-runners.

It also seems to be the consensus that scored/retired runners are subject to most rules of interference, and in fact at a lower threshold of tolerance.

 

On a side note, I wonder if "scored runner" is the correct terminology.  I just go by one line in the score keeping section of OBR that says a home run is credited to a player who touches all four bases and scores.  This would imply that touching home base and scoring are two different acts, or conditions.   For me, I had been differentiating between scoring (ie. crossing home base), and counting/negating the run.  Or is it as simple as scored and unscored?