Interference call

[Guest david]

Bases are loaded with 1 out. Ball is hit to SS. SS fields the ball and throws to 2Bman at the bag. 2Bman catches the ball and attempts to throw the ball to first base for a double play. Runner at 1st doesn't slide, gives up, or go around but runs into the second baseman as he makes his throw to first. While all this is happening both runners from second and third cross home plate. The force out at second was called and interference was called making the batter out at first base, but they allowed one run to score. What is the call at second? & Do any of the runs count?

[Senor Azul]

David, under high school rules your play was indeed a violation of the force play slide rule. Since the batter-runner was declared out for the third out no runs would score (he never legally attained first base). Here are the applicable rules--

2019 NFHS rule 8-4 ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases; or

PENALTY: The runner is out. Interference is called and the ball is dead immediately. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. With two outs, the runner is declared out. The batter is credited with a fielder’s choice.

Rule 9-1 ART. 1 . . . A runner scores one run each time he legally advances to and touches first, second, third and then home plate before there are three outs to end the inning.

EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which the third out is made as follows:

a. by the batter-runner before he touches first base; or

[noumpere]

If it's FED or NCAA, this is a FPSR violation and runners return to TOP.

[Guest david]

It was in a middle school game that follows ghsa or the high school rules in the state.

[noumpere]

17 minutes ago, Guest david said:

It was in a middle school game that follows ghsa or the high school rules in the state.

So my answer stands:  Force Play Slide Rule violation; runners return to the base occupied at the Time of Pitch.

[wolfe_man]

If you had 1 out and R1 was forced out at 2B - and then Interference is called on R1 making the BR out as well for the third out of the inning, then no runs score.  No runs can score on the third out of the inning if BR did not legally obtain 1B.

I believe this is part of 8-4-2(2):

does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases; or

1. A runner may slide in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder.
2. Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2) Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.

PENALTY:   The runner is out. Interference is called and the ball is dead immediately. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. With two outs, the runner is declared out. The batter is credited with a fielder’s choice.

[noumpere]

Yes -- sorry I missed that the play started with one out.  I (mis-)read it as the inning would continue with the runners returned.

[SH0102]

Was an explanation given as to why one run was allowed to score?  There are no reasonable answers, just curious what the justification was at the time.

[wolfe_man]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Yes -- sorry I missed that the play started with one out.  I (mis-)read it as the inning would continue with the runners returned.

I had to read it a couple of times myself.  

[maven]

Final answer, all codes: the ball is dead, R1 out on the play, BR out for R1's INT. No run scores, because the BR was the 3rd out before legally acquiring 1B.

For FED/NCAA: R1's INT is also a FPSR violation, which would make an enforcement difference only if R3 had scored before the time of INT (in that case, for OBR, R3's run would count—though TBH in amateur ball I had the INT occurring first).

For FED/NCAA we'd also be alert for MC on this type of play (not saying it happened here).

[Senor Azul]

Final answer, all codes: the ball is dead, R1 out on the play, BR out for R1's INT. No run scores, because the BR was the 3rd out before legally acquiring 1B.

Mr. maven, are you construing the interference by R1 in the OP to be intentional? Because it is my understanding of the OBR rule to be that we would not get two outs on this play unless the interference was a willful and deliberate act with the obvious intent to break up a double play.

If the interference was not intentional then in an OBR game we would have R1 out for his interference and the batter-runner would be awarded first base. Any other runners would be returned to their TOP base. Thus your final answer would not be the same for all codes. Right?

Could you clarify this please? After all, it is paramount that we do not mislead the lurkers and the newbies.

[maven]

R1 was out on the play when he interfered with the relay throw (technically then it's retired runner INT, not runner INT).

On 3/24/2021 at 9:00 AM, Guest david said:

2Bman catches the ball and attempts to throw the ball to first base for a double play.

 

[Senor Azul]

Well, Mr. maven, I am impressed that you came up with that. Unfortunately, I think it is still wrong and I believe Gil Imber of Close Call Sports would say so too. Here’s how he analyzes retired runner’s interference as found in his article Boston Files Protest Over Odd Interference No-Call dated July 15, 2017.

OBR 6.01(a)(5), also known as recently-retired runner's interference, states that a runner who has been erased from the bases (via an out or score) is guilty of interference if he hinders or impedes a following play. 6.01(a)(5) does apply in any event in which a runner commits a hindering or impeding act after leaving his base path (e.g., abandoning his normal base-running responsibilities), but does not apply when the runner is simply completing a base running maneuver that has begun prior to his retirement…

About Recently Retired Runner's Interference and Residue of a Legitimate Attempt to Run the Bases: Regarding this brand of interference, the Wendelstedt umpiring manual specifies the precise case of a batter-runner who continues running to first base after being retired (say, on a caught bunt or a third strike that results in an out [e.g., a dropped third strike with first base occupied and less than two out]), and specifies that the retired batter-runner may be guilty of retired runner's interference if he interferes with the play being made back into first base while running outside of the running lane.

In other words, per Wendelstedt, the batter-runner is not out if he "hinders or impedes a following play" if he is legitimately running the bases, even though he has already been retired.

An even easier "out" here is gleaned from the standard case of a bona fide slide (as illustrated above, and seen during the course of a majority of big league double play attempts). If recently-retired runner's interference applied to any case where a baserunner hindered or impeded the following play being made on another runner, then it would be illegal to slide into second (or third, e.g.) base after being forced out: in other words, if the logic here is that Holliday was out for interfering with the play at first base after being retired at second base, then so too should be all runners who slide into second base after the pivot man receives the ball.

Clearly, a runner is allowed to complete a legal base-running maneuver (e.g., a bona fide slide) and he will not be called for recently-retired runner's interference if he is otherwise legal in his running of the bases as he is put out.

[Recontra]

I agree with Mr. Maven. In the OP, interference was called on R-1 after he was put out at second, and it was pretty clear that R-1 was called for interfering with the play on the BR at 1st. So even if it were OBR, interference was still called, it would have been intentional retired runner interference, but it was still called, so somebody is going to be out!  The OP references FPSR issues (so it was obviously a NFHS or NCAA game), but even if it were an OBR game, interference was called on the retired runner for interfering with the play at 1st base on the BR. Since the play at first on BR is the play that was interfered with, BR is out. It is only if we don't know which play on which runner was interfered with by the retired runner that the runner currently closest to home is declared out. So, I believe that under the OP (even under OBR), no runs score, even if R-3 touched home prior to the act of interference (and even if R-2 is currently the runner closest to home at the time of the interference).

OBR 5.08 EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; . . . .

I think I'm right 😀😀

[Senor Azul]

Actually, Mr. Recontra, the original post did not specify a rule set. It was only after Mr. noumpere’s post that mentioned FED/NCAA FPSR did the guest david give us the information that his play was indeed played under high school rules. Then Mr. maven said in his post that the ruling on the play would be the same in all codes (even OBR). It was then I disputed Mr. maven’s assertion about OBR.

No one here ever said that any runs should be allowed to score on the play. The on-field umpires in the OP ruled incorrectly on that point. Here’s how david described the play in his original post—“Runner at 1st doesn't slide, gives up, or go around but runs into the second baseman as he makes his throw to first.” I sure don’t get intentional interference from that description—in fact, the runner was trying to avoid by trying to go around. It sounds to me as if the second baseman’s momentum carried him off the bag into the runner’s new path.

By rule interference on a throw has to be intentional but it is a judgment call. Here’s what the 2018 MiLBUM says about that judgment—

“If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a fielder attempting to catch a thrown ball or attempting to throw a ball with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play, the umpire shall declare the runner out for interference and shall also declare the batter-runner out for the interference of his teammate.”

You certainly are entitled to your judgment on this but I cannot agree with you on this unless we get more details from the guest david. By the way, did you read the excerpt from Gil Imber’s analysis?

[beerguy55]

12 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Here’s how david described the play in his original post—“Runner at 1st doesn't slide, gives up, or go around but runs into the second baseman as he makes his throw to first.” I sure don’t get intentional interference from that description—in fact, the runner was trying to avoid by trying to go around. It sounds to me as if the second baseman’s momentum carried him off the bag into the runner’s new path.

By rule interference on a throw has to be intentional but it is a judgment call. Here’s what the 2018 MiLBUM says about that judgment—

“If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a fielder attempting to catch a thrown ball or attempting to throw a ball with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play, the umpire shall declare the runner out for interference and shall also declare the batter-runner out for the interference of his teammate.”

You certainly are entitled to your judgment on this but I cannot agree with you on this unless we get more details from the guest david. By the way, did you read the excerpt from Gil Imber’s analysis?

 

The OP also says "The force out at second was called and interference was called making the batter out at first base"

Provided that information, given the context, in all codes Maven's statement is correct, is it not?

The question was never about the ump's judgment, it was about whether or not any runs score.

Having said all that..."but runs into the second baseman", for me, goes beyond standard baserunning, and sounds like obvious intent to me, even in OBR....based on some of the things I've seen called INT/FPSR/bona fide slide infraction on double plays in MLB the past few seasons, the OP description fits the bill IMO.

 

[Senor Azul]

Mr. beerguy55, FED rule 2-32-1 tells us that “a runner may slide or run in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder.” In the OP the runner complied with that rule and yet you still want to penalize him.

Provided that information, given the context, in all codes Maven's statement is correct, is it not?

No. Both FED and NCAA have a FPSR which uses the word shall when it talks about the penalty. In other words, getting two outs on the interference is automatic by rule. In OBR it is not automatic—the umpire must judge it to be deliberate and willful. The codes are different. I think it is plain as day that the runner tried to avoid by the description given us by the OP—I do not agree with your judgment.

The question was never about the ump's judgment, it was about whether or not any runs score.

I disputed Mr. maven’s assertion that OBR is ruled the same as FED/NCAA. Even though the acronym OBR was not used he is the one who introduced OBR to this discussion by stating the ruling is the same in all codes. OBR’s rules are different on this question. To get two outs on this play in OBR the umpire must judge it to be deliberate and willful. Of course, the OP didn’t use the word judgment in his original post (I can read at least as well as you do). But he did ask this in his request for information—“What is the call at second? & Do any of the runs count?”

Mr. maven justified his assertion by calling the play an example of retired runner’s interference. You are justifying his call by saying it is intentional interference. I say it is neither. Obviously, nothing I say will persuade you otherwise and vice versa. We are at an impasse.

[Recontra]

Sorry if I caused more aggravation. I think we all probably actually agree. As called on the field, no runs score under all rule sets. However, under OBR, the description of what R-1 did and did not do, without more, would probably not constitute retired runner interference, because retired runner interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. 

Harmony hopefully restored. 😀

[maven]

7 hours ago, Recontra said:

However, under OBR, the description of what R-1 did and did not do, without more, would probably not constitute retired runner interference, because retired runner interference with a thrown ball must be intentional.

R1 did not interfere with a thrown ball. He ran into a fielder throwing the ball. That's a fielder in the act of making a play, and it's (retired) runner INT.

Interference with a thrown ball is actually contacting the ball in the air (or, less often, on the ground).

Also, I'll express disappointment that the "Mr." thing is spreading. 'maven' is my screen name, not my surname, so I am not properly referred to as "Mr. maven." And I have never believed that posters who gratuitously add a title to others' screen names are doing it to express respect, given the rest of their content.

[Senor Azul]

From the 2013 Wendelstedt rules manual (p. 180):

Intentional Interference with a Thrown Ball

A runner intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, or with a fielder attempting to throw a ball to make a play on any runner. 5.09(b)(3), 6.01(a)(10)

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (108):

Flight of Thrown Ball and Tag Attempts

A runner has interfered with the flight of a thrown ball, a throw absent a batted ball, or a tag attempt only if such runner

(1) commits an intentional action that falls outside the scope of trying to get to a base safely and to stay on a base if it cannot be overrun, and

(2) such action hinders a fielder trying to throw or trying to tag.

 

Here’s what the 2018 MiLBUM (p. 83)(same text can be found in the MLBUM also) says about interference on a throw--

“If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a fielder attempting to catch a thrown ball or attempting to throw a ball with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play, the umpire shall declare the runner out for interference and shall also declare the batter-runner out for the interference of his teammate.”

[HokieUmp]

Given what's being talked about, I'd like to provide a play that happened just today in a JV game, and our decision, so that you guys can light me up over how we %$#$@-ed it up, and get the whole budding "Mr" controversy behind us.

R1 (I think we had at least R2 as well, but not important for the story), 1 out.  Batter pops up into foul ground.  F2 circles around and makes the catch, well into foul territory.  R1, because JV-ball, was off and running at the crack of the bat, and is WELL away from the base.  F2 goes to double him off, and throws towards 1B.  The retired BR, ALSO because JV-ball, is wandering around, heading for the dugout, and manages to get get doinked in the head by the throw.

After a pregnant "....the hell just happened?" pause by all participants, my partner and I both signal out, and we get R1 for interference by a retired player.  A little talk with the O coach, but not heated.

It wasn't until a few hours later, on the drive home (this happened in the first of two games), that I thought, "Uh oh.  We may have cocked that up."

Did we, in fact, cock that up?  The knocking down of the throw was unintentional, so I'm now thinking we did.  R1 WAS dead to rights, minus the player's melon in the way, but I don't think that helps.

[BT_Blue]

It could be worse @HokieUmp. I ACTUALLY had a "the hands are part of the bat" argument today... IN A VARSITY GAME! SomethuSomething i NEVER thought i would have at that level! 

[Richvee]

Why is this not a FPSR in OBR?

From the MiLBUM

"When a runner who does not engage in a bone fide slide makes contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play, such contact will be deemed to have "hindered and impeded" the fielder for the purpose of interpreting rule 6.01(i). However, there may be instances where the runner does not make contact, or makes minimal contact with the fielder. In such cases , the umpire will use his judgement to determine whether the runner "hindered and impeded" the fielder and thereby violated the rule. 

[maven]

I think Rich is asking about the OP.

HokieUmp's play: interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. It's on F2 to throw around the retired runner. "That's nothing" (signal safe), play the bounce.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, maven said:

HokieUmp's play: interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. It's on F2 to throw around the retired runner. "That's nothing" (signal safe), play the bounce.

Are you sure? Hint: it's a retired runner.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, maven said:

I think Rich is asking about the OP.

HokieUmp's play: interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. It's on F2 to throw around the retired runner. "That's nothing" (signal safe), play the bounce.

I think only FED protects retired runners from unintentional interference with a throw. OBR and NCAA would have interference once the retired runner abandoned his normal baserunning.