Interference after scoring

[Guest woodman23]

12U OBR

Bases loaded, 0 out, base hit to outfield and R3 and R2 score. After scoring R3 was giving high fives up the first base line and interferes with the catcher receiving the throw from LF and the ball goes to the backstop, allowing BR and R1 to advance to 2nd and 3rd. I called time and sent the runners back to 1st and 2nd which nullified the unintentional interference. I tried looking up the rule to see if I got it correct but could not find it.

[maven]

If you ruled INT, then a runner is out: either the runner who would have been played on or the runner closest to home. Other runners return to TOI base (for the BR, probably 1B).

It's impossible to assess judgment calls without video, but if I had to bet given only your description, I'd bet it was INT.

[Senor Azul]

2021 OBR (yes, they finally updated the rules on the MLB website)

6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions

(a) Batter or Runner Interference

It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

(5) 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. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate (see Rule 6.01(j));

[Velho]

Alright, now this is interesting...

Based on the OP, R3, after scoring, gets in the way of “the catcher receiving the throw from LF... allowing BR and R1 to advance to 2nd and 3rd”. There was (or let’s assume there was) no direct “following play being made on” BR or R1.

The OP put them back to 2nd and 1st to reverse the R3 (unintentional) actions. Is that allowed under any rule or are the only two possible outcomes by rule A)Interference w/ R1 is out or B) No interference w/ R1 and BR stay on 2nd & 3rd?

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

The OP put them back to 2nd and 1st to reverse the R3 (unintentional) actions. Is that allowed under any rule or are the only two possible outcomes by rule A)Interference w/ R1 is out or B) No interference w/ R1 and BR stay on 2nd & 3rd?

No.

Yes.

If you have no interference, you need to play on (keep the ball in play.) If you call time, that means you had to have had an infraction. There is a prescribed penalty for this infraction.

[beerguy55]

13 hours ago, Velho said:

Alright, now this is interesting...

Based on the OP, R3, after scoring, gets in the way of “the catcher receiving the throw from LF... allowing BR and R1 to advance to 2nd and 3rd”. There was (or let’s assume there was) no direct “following play being made on” BR or R1.

The OP put them back to 2nd and 1st to reverse the R3 (unintentional) actions. Is that allowed under any rule or are the only two possible outcomes by rule A)Interference w/ R1 is out or B) No interference w/ R1 and BR stay on 2nd & 3rd?

Without the penalty there's no risk to off-set the potential reward.  Scored runners can just mill about home plate to accidentally on purpose get in the way...reward...umpire misses call and runners advance...risk...umpire sees it and runners simply put back to where they would have been anyway.   Call someone out and these guys learn to gtfo of the way.

[Guest Guest XXX]

I'm particularly interested in how giving high fives along the first base line interferes with a throw to the catcher from LF, myself.  I probably would have ruled no INT as I would expect R1 and BR on a base hit w/ direct throw to catcher (errant or not) to make 2B and 3B.

[maven]

10 hours ago, Guest Guest XXX said:

I'm particularly interested in how giving high fives along the first base line interferes with a throw to the catcher from LF, myself.  I probably would have ruled no INT as I would expect R1 and BR on a base hit w/ direct throw to catcher (errant or not) to make 2B and 3B.

That's not the intent of the INT rule: the goal is not to protect players who perform perfectly, but to protect actual players, who sometimes make mistakes.

Sure, R1 and BR should take 3B and 2B respectively on a play like this. But that's true only beyond a certain level, and it assumes that neither one misses a base or falls down.

The INT rule protects actual defensive play, even when they play poorly. R1 might in some sense have deserved 3B here, but F2 deserved an unhindered opportunity to play on him. 

Perhaps you don't care for the INT rule, but proper enforcement requires protecting the actual fielders, not only ideal fielders. In this way, it's akin to a runner who takes a bad route to a base and runs into a fielder who's not paying attention: although the fielder would not be in the way of an ideal runner, it's still OBS (given that the runner is not intentionally running into him). That is, the OBS rule protects actual runners, not only ideal runners.

[beerguy55]

11 hours ago, Guest Guest XXX said:

I'm particularly interested in how giving high fives along the first base line interferes with a throw to the catcher from LF, myself.  I probably would have ruled no INT as I would expect R1 and BR on a base hit w/ direct throw to catcher (errant or not) to make 2B and 3B.

I wouldn't.   MAYBE R1 to third on a hit to right, but not left.   Cutoff man is there, if he's not catching, he's pretending to catch.  R1 should be very cautious as he comes around second and unless the throw is blatantly high he's probably staying put.  Also, if the ball is hard hit, R1 may be barely reaching second as the throw comes in.  This expectation entirely depends on speed of the runners....in my experience, as long as the throw is low enough that it could be cut off, R1 and R2 are only advancing one base, most of the time.  By description of the OP, the ball going to the backstop is why the runners advanced, not the throw to the plate.

As far as INT on the throw...If the throw is a few steps up the line it's a throw that F2 can easily get to and stop from going to the backstop, and come up throwing on any advancing runners - unless those players are in his way.