Runner Interference...ruling?

[BlueMagic]

Fed Rules for both scenarios

Scenario 1: 1 out, runners on 2nd & 3rd, 1-1 count on batter. Batter hits foul fly on 3B side. Runner on 3rd interferes with third baseman's attempt to catch the ball. How is this handled, and is it handled any differently than the following situation?

Scenario 2: 1 out, runners on 2nd & 3rd, 1-1 count on batter. Batter hits pop fly to SS. Runner from 2nd, thinking it was two outs, is running to 3rd and interferes with the SS attempting to catch the ball. 

Thanks in advance for any insight provided.

[grayhawk]

Scenario 1:  When the interference occurs, the umpire should point and say, "That's interference!" and then wait for the fair/foul status of the ball the be determined.  Once fair/foul is determined, he should call time.  R3 is out for interference.  Because the ball was foul, the batter returns to bat with a 1-2 count.

Scenario 2:  When the interference occurs, the umpire should point and say, "Time!  That's interference!"  Since the ball is obviously fair, there is no need to wait for the fair/foul status of the ball to be determined.  R2 is out for interference.  Because the ball was fair, the batter is awarded first base.

[BlueMagic]

Thanks, grayhawk. So under no circumstances would you call 2 outs in Scenario 1? If you thought the third baseman would’ve caught the foul ball had the interference not occurred, you wouldn’t call the batter out in addition to the runner who interfered?

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, BlueMagic said:

Thanks, grayhawk. So under no circumstances would you call 2 outs in Scenario 1? If you thought the third baseman would’ve caught the foul ball had the interference not occurred, you wouldn’t call the batter out in addition to the runner who interfered?

No.  The catch is irrelevant since it never happened. While we are waiting to actually kill the play until the fair/foul status can be determined, the play is functionally dead the instant the interference occurs. 

You can get two outs if the bases were loaded and the ball was fair and ruled an infield fly. In that case, R3 would be out for interference and the batter-runner would be out on the infield fly. 

[Richvee]

You can get 2 outs in FED, though the case play does not mention if the ruling is the same if the ball is foul. 

 

With all bases occupied and no outs, B4 bunts, which results in a fly ball in the infield (not an infield fly). As R1 advances toward home, he contacts F5, causing him to drop the fly ball. How should the umpire rule?
RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R1 is out for interference and B4 is out, since the interference prevented a double play involving R1 and B4.

 

[BlueMagic]

I guess I’m having a hard time understanding the logic behind the difference in ruling for the two scenarios. If you thought the ball hit by the batter would’ve been caught in both scenarios had the interference not occurred, why not call 2 outs? Why does fair/foul status matter?

[noumpere]

51 minutes ago, BlueMagic said:

I guess I’m having a hard time understanding the logic behind the difference in ruling for the two scenarios. If you thought the ball hit by the batter would’ve been caught in both scenarios had the interference not occurred, why not call 2 outs? Why does fair/foul status matter?

In FED, it doesn't.  If the likely (and some would say "almost inevitable") out come of the play would be "BR out on the catch, Rx out on appeal,' then get two outs in FED.

In OBR, the interference must be "wilful and with the deliberate intent of preventing a double play" (or some such words) to get two outs -- and that (almost) never happens.

 

The only difference between the two scenarios is that BR returns to the plate if the ball was foul; BR gets first if the ball was fair.  That's known in advance in scenrio 2 (and yes, someone will come up with the ball hitting a rock and the game being played on a marble slate of an infield and rolling fouls ...); it's not yet know in scenario 1.

[BlueMagic]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

The only difference between the two scenarios is that BR returns to the plate if the ball was foul; BR gets first if the ball was fair.  That's known in advance in scenrio 2 (and yes, someone will come up with the ball hitting a rock and the game being played on a marble slate of an infield and rolling fouls ...); it's not yet know in scenario 1.

Why would BR get first base on his fair batted ball that would’ve been caught if there was no interference?

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, BlueMagic said:

Why would BR get first base on his fair batted ball that would’ve been caught if there was no interference?

Because the rules makers decided that getting two outs is too punitive when two outs wouldn't have resulted without the interference.  The other option would have been to call out the BR and send all runners (including the interfering runner), back to their bases at the time of the interference.  That's not punitive enough because the BR would have been out anyway.

[Tborze]

53 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Because the rules makers decided that getting two outs is too punitive when two outs wouldn't have resulted without the interference.  The other option would have been to call out the BR and send all runners (including the interfering runner), back to their bases at the time of the interference.  That's not punitive enough because the BR would have been out anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also because once the interference occurred, the ball is immediately dead?

[grayhawk]

20 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also because once the interference occurred, the ball is immediately dead?

It's part of it, but the rules makers still had to decide what to do with the BR once the interference occurred.  

[maven]

14 hours ago, Richvee said:

You can get 2 outs in FED, though the case play does not mention if the ruling is the same if the ball is foul. 

You can get 2 outs in FED for a foul fly with INT: the runner who interferes is out for the INT, the batter is out because the INT prevented a double play.

I would be looking for hindrance fairly far from the base for a double play: basically, we're ruling that the runner would have been doubled off (retouch appeal) had the foul fly been caught for an out.

Ordinarily, I would have 1 out on this play: calling 2 outs is likely to ruin my day.

[beerguy55]

8 hours ago, BlueMagic said:

I guess I’m having a hard time understanding the logic behind the difference in ruling for the two scenarios. If you thought the ball hit by the batter would’ve been caught in both scenarios had the interference not occurred, why not call 2 outs? Why does fair/foul status matter?

The purpose is to punish the person who made the infraction, and, to some degree, make some attempt to "make the defense whole" - not to reward the defense like they won the Extra Out Lottery.  In short, if the runner had not interfered the defense would have made one out...so, the end result of the play should be one out to the offense (that it's the runner instead of the batter is irrelevant).   The interference can often have the additional penalty of pushing the offense back 90 or even 180 feet - not always, but sometimes.  Throwing in an additional out is too punitive.   If the interference prevented a double play, then it would be reasonable to give two outs.

You start throwing in additional outs then you're inviting the defense to try to create interference situations, and now you have more stuff on your plate to judge, and it just makes a mockery of the game.