Bases loaded, interference on batted ball, OBR

[TheLovejoy]

OBR (American Legion) – Interference With Bases Loaded, Nobody Out

We had this situation recently and I’ve been stewing on it a bit:

Bases loaded, nobody out. The batter hits a ground ball that isn’t a slow roller, but it forces the shortstop to charge hard. As he does, R2 (the runner from second) makes contact with the shortstop. It wasn’t flagrant — R2 actually tried to veer in front of him, but they essentially met at the same spot and bumped into each other, knocking each other slightly off course. No plow, no malicious intent.

We called dead ball, runner interference, and ruled:

• The shortstop (the fielder interfered with) is awarded the out.

• The batter-runner is placed on 1st.

• R1 is placed at 2nd.

• R3 remains at 3rd.

• No one complained, and we played on.

Now that I’ve had time to think about it, I’m second-guessing the application. In hindsight, the shortstop could have possibly made a play on the lead runner at home. Since there was potential for a double play, should we have also called out the runner closest to home? I thought he'd either get the runner right in front of him, OR go home for the out, probably not both.

That part of the rule — when to get the “runner closest to home” for interference — is always the trickiest one for me to remember. 🤦‍♂️ Usually it's the BR as the double play interference is near 2nd. But the wild application of just pulling the runner closest to home is always an afterthought. 

[jimurrayalterego]

19 minutes ago, TheLovejoy said:

OBR (American Legion) – Interference With Bases Loaded, Nobody Out

We had this situation recently and I’ve been stewing on it a bit:

Bases loaded, nobody out. The batter hits a ground ball that isn’t a slow roller, but it forces the shortstop to charge hard. As he does, R2 (the runner from second) makes contact with the shortstop. It wasn’t flagrant — R2 actually tried to veer in front of him, but they essentially met at the same spot and bumped into each other, knocking each other slightly off course. No plow, no malicious intent.

We called dead ball, runner interference, and ruled:

• The shortstop (the fielder interfered with) is awarded the out.

• The batter-runner is placed on 1st.

• R1 is placed at 2nd.

• R3 remains at 3rd.

• No one complained, and we played on.

Now that I’ve had time to think about it, I’m second-guessing the application. In hindsight, the shortstop could have possibly made a play on the lead runner at home. Since there was potential for a double play, should we have also called out the runner closest to home? I thought he'd either get the runner right in front of him, OR go home for the out, probably not both.

That part of the rule — when to get the “runner closest to home” for interference — is always the trickiest one for me to remember. 🤦‍♂️ Usually it's the BR as the double play interference is near 2nd. But the wild application of just pulling the runner closest to home is always an afterthought. 

"The shortstop (the fielder interfered with) is awarded the out." We don't care who gets the putout. We just have an out.

"That part of the rule — when to get the “runner closest to home” for interference" There is only one time that is mentioned in OBR. When a batter willfully interferes to prevent a DP.

Neither of the below apply to your play:

6.01(a)

"(6) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner (see Rule 6.01(j));

(7) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference (see Rule 6.01(j));"

Your play was adjuvated correctly for OBR.

You might be thinking of FED where they allow you to judge whether a DP was possible whether the INT was willful or not.  And it should be an afterthought in FED.

 

[beerguy55]

43 minutes ago, TheLovejoy said:

Now that I’ve had time to think about it, I’m second-guessing the application. In hindsight, the shortstop could have possibly made a play on the lead runner at home. Since there was potential for a double play, should we have also called out the runner closest to home? I thought he'd either get the runner right in front of him, OR go home for the out, probably not both.

There is no potential for a double play, as described, unless perhaps Kyle Schwarber is the batter.  He MIGHT get the lead runner at home...he's not getting the DP, whether that's getting the batter at first, or tagging R2 before throwing home (removing the force).  You'd have to determine he'd have a tailor-made case of tagging R2 and then easily getting R1 or the batter after. (in FED)

Don't try to create double plays.  You want the DP opportunity to be obvious...ie. self-evident...not debatable...not "could have possibly".

[Coach Carl]

16 hours ago, TheLovejoy said:

It wasn’t flagrant — R2 actually tried to veer in front of him, but they essentially met at the same spot and bumped into each other, knocking each other slightly off course. No plow, no malicious intent.

 

15 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play

Also, as described, the runner didn't meet the criteria of willful and deliberate.

[noumpere]

FED *might* have a different answer -- the "willful and deliberate" criterion isn't needed -- only that a DP is ... likely? (I forget the exact wording)

[jimurrayalterego]

27 minutes ago, Coach Carl said:

 

Also, as described, the runner didn't meet the criteria of willful and deliberate.

Didn’t I say the cites did not apply to the play?

[Coach Carl]

4 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Didn’t I say the cites did not apply to the play?

Yes, you did.  I'm not sure what I was reading but my guess is I was thinking about beerguys response while quoting your rule cite and didn't re-read yours to realize it was already there.