Intervening Play on Running Lane Int.

[Sut'n Blue]

Rule 6.10(a)(11).

Situation:

Bases loaded, none or one out, a dribbler to F5 who picks up and fires home too late to get R3. F2 throws to first and BR is called out for running lane interference. Under the rule R3's run counts. I'm trying to figure out the logic behind this as the way I read the rule R3 gets to advance but the other runners have to go back to their base at time of pitch. This makes no sense to me. Am I missing something?

 

[maven]

Yes: the other runners were not legally put out by the defense. They advanced due to the illegal action of the BR.

And that's the old rule number.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Sut'n Blue said:

Rule 6.10(a)(11).

Situation:

Bases loaded, none or one out, a dribbler to F5 who picks up and fires home too late to get R3. F2 throws to first and BR is called out for running lane interference. Under the rule R3's run counts. I'm trying to figure out the logic behind this as the way I read the rule R3 gets to advance but the other runners have to go back to their base at time of pitch. This makes no sense to me. Am I missing something?

 

My MLBUM says that runners return TOI with an intervening play.

[Senor Azul]

Shirley, you jest, Mr. maven. There was no rule 6.10(a)(11) in the old rule book. It seems that Mr. Sut’n Blue merely made a typo when he referred to current rule 6.01(a)(11) Penalty which is the correct rule citation that mentions an intervening play.

 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2018 MiLBUM (section 6.2, p. 82):

Play 1:  Play at the plate on runner attempting to score; runner is called safe. A following play is made on the batter-runner, and he is called out for interference outside the three-foot lane.

Ruling 1:  With less than two out, the run scores and batter-runner is out. With two out, the run does not count. The reasoning is that an intervening play occurred before the interference. Runners would return to the base last legally touched at the time of interference…

 

Prior to 2015 the term intervening play was actually defined in Rule 2 (Definitions of Terms) under the entry for interference in its subparagraph (a).

[Sut'n Blue]

Yes, a typo - should read 6.01. My bad.

Maven: I'm not sure I'm following you. In my example R3's advance to home, which occurred prior to the the BR's interference, is allowed but if R1 and R2 advance to their next base prior to BR's interference, they would have to go back pursuant to the language of the rule. I think that is inconsistent. It's even possible R1 and R2 made it to their next base before R3 made it to home but they would have to return while R3 would not. Here nobody advances as a result of the BR's illegal action as they had all advanced before the interference occurred.

The MLBUM interpretation as cited by Jimurray makes the most sense to me (but then the MiLBUM quoted by Senor Azul differs and follows the language of the rule more closely thereby giving us different interpretations).

At the end of the day the rule is the rule for whatever reason and I will of course apply it but the seeming inconsistency caught my eye and made me wonder.

 

[Replacematt]

42 minutes ago, Sut'n Blue said:

Yes, a typo - should read 6.01. My bad.

Maven: I'm not sure I'm following you. In my example R3's advance to home, which occurred prior to the the BR's interference, is allowed but if R1 and R2 advance to their next base prior to BR's interference, they would have to go back pursuant to the language of the rule. I think that is inconsistent. It's even possible R1 and R2 made it to their next base before R3 made it to home but they would have to return while R3 would not. Here nobody advances as a result of the BR's illegal action as they had all advanced before the interference occurred.

The MLBUM interpretation as cited by Jimurray makes the most sense to me (but then the MiLBUM quoted by Senor Azul differs and follows the language of the rule more closely thereby giving us different interpretations).

At the end of the day the rule is the rule for whatever reason and I will of course apply it but the seeming inconsistency caught my eye and made me wonder.

 

The interpretations don't differ--if R3 scores on a play at home, and then RLI occurs, R3's status is not affected by the interference. He scores, except with two out, because the third out was made by the BR before reaching first base.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Sut'n Blue said:

Yes, a typo - should read 6.01. My bad.

Maven: I'm not sure I'm following you. In my example R3's advance to home, which occurred prior to the the BR's interference, is allowed but if R1 and R2 advance to their next base prior to BR's interference, they would have to go back pursuant to the language of the rule. I think that is inconsistent. It's even possible R1 and R2 made it to their next base before R3 made it to home but they would have to return while R3 would not. Here nobody advances as a result of the BR's illegal action as they had all advanced before the interference occurred.

The MLBUM interpretation as cited by Jimurray makes the most sense to me (but then the MiLBUM quoted by Senor Azul differs and follows the language of the rule more closely thereby giving us different interpretations).

At the end of the day the rule is the rule for whatever reason and I will of course apply it but the seeming inconsistency caught my eye and made me wonder.

 

I don't see the inconsistency.  Without an intervening play, runners return TOP.  With an intervening play, runners return TOI.  IF R1 and R2 have reached the next base at the time of RLI (as R3 has in all these examples), they keep the advance base; if they haven't reached the next base, they don't.

[grayhawk]

On 4/17/2020 at 3:42 PM, Sut'n Blue said:

Yes, a typo - should read 6.01. My bad.

Maven: I'm not sure I'm following you. In my example R3's advance to home, which occurred prior to the the BR's interference, is allowed but if R1 and R2 advance to their next base prior to BR's interference, they would have to go back pursuant to the language of the rule. I think that is inconsistent. It's even possible R1 and R2 made it to their next base before R3 made it to home but they would have to return while R3 would not. Here nobody advances as a result of the BR's illegal action as they had all advanced before the interference occurred.

The MLBUM interpretation as cited by Jimurray makes the most sense to me (but then the MiLBUM quoted by Senor Azul differs and follows the language of the rule more closely thereby giving us different interpretations).

At the end of the day the rule is the rule for whatever reason and I will of course apply it but the seeming inconsistency caught my eye and made me wonder.

 

I see what you're saying about the way the rule is written, but MLBUM clears up the confusion by saying that if there is an intervening play, all runners return to their bases at the time of the interference, not the time of the pitch.

Also, this is a rule difference in Fed.  In Fed, it's always TOI whether there is an intervening play or not.  For instance, let's say there is a squeeze and the batter gets the bunt down.  F1 fields the bunt and sees he has no chance at R3 and throws to first.  The BR is called out for RLI.  If R3 touched the plate prior to the RLI, then he scores (as long as RLI isn't the third out).  In OBR and NCAA, R3 would have to return to third because there was no intervening play.

[Thunderheads]

13 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I see what you're saying about the way the rule is written, but MLBUM clears up the confusion by saying that if there is an intervening play, all runners return to their bases at the time of the interference, not the time of the pitch.

Also, this is a rule difference in Fed.  In Fed, it's always TOI whether there is an intervening play or not.  For instance, let's say there is a squeeze and the batter gets the bunt down.  F1 fields the bunt and sees he has no chance at R3 and throws to first.  The BR is called out for RLI.  If R3 touched the plate prior to the RLI, then he scores (as long as RLI isn't the third out).  In OBR and NCAA, R3 would have to return to third because there was no intervening play.

That is interesting .......  especially in this example because the first thing I thought was:  Can you determine a 'time' as to when RLI is called?  Isnt' it determined by a few things, and not just when the RLI is physically called?  Am I making sense?

[Vegas_Ump]

This is more simple than I think.  The BR was retired for out #3 before legally attaining 1B.  Therefore NO RUNS CAN SCORE.

You see this kind of ruling on appeals, especially on an advantageous 4th out appeal.

Mike

Las Vegas

[grayhawk]

3 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

That is interesting .......  especially in this example because the first thing I thought was:  Can you determine a 'time' as to when RLI is called?  Isnt' it determined by a few things, and not just when the RLI is physically called?  Am I making sense?

Here's how I look at it:

1.  If RLI is called because the BR interfered with the fielder TAKING the throw, then the interference occurred at that moment, such as when the BR was hit, or when the fielder wasn't able to glove the throw.

2.  If RLI is called because the BR interfered with the fielder MAKING the throw (in Fed and NCAA), the interference occurred at the moment the fielder released the ball.

[grayhawk]

BTW, here is a video I made for our association on RLI (Fed rules).  If you're sick of Netflix and want some baseball stuff to watch, here you go:

 

[maven]

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

Can you determine a 'time' when RLI is called?  Isnt' it determined by a few things, and not just when the RLI is physically called?

As grayhawk's answer implies, TOI refers to the time of the interference, not the time of the call (which will be later, sometimes much later). You probably know that, but I just wanted others to be clear.

That said, I'm not splitting hairs: 99 times out of 100, R3 is returning. Probably on the other one, too: I'm pretty sure the INT happened first.

The only exception I'd be likely to make is a play where R3 was stealing and the BR got into a rundown, with R3 standing between the defensive dugout and the INT!