Does the run count? Does rule set matter?

[johnnyg08]

R2 and R3. 2 outs.

High pop up to F5 in fair territory. After R3 touches home, R2 interferes with F5 before he catches the ball.

When a runner interferes with a batted ball, the normal rule is that the runner is out, the BR gets first, and all other runners get their last base attained at time of interference. That would allow R3 to score.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

R2 and R3. 2 outs.

High pop up to F5 in fair territory. After R3 touches home, R2 interferes with F5 before he catches the ball.

When a runner interferes with a batted ball, the normal rule is that the runner is out, the BR gets first, and all other runners get their last base attained at time of interference. That would allow R3 to score.

My 2012 BRD has this play in INT by Runner with DP, Who is out?  The ruling is edited which means it changed from some  year in the past. 

"Play 164-324: R2, R3. The suicide squeeze is on. B1 bunts a pop-up toward short, but before the fielder can make the play, R2 hits him (not maliciously), and the ball falls to the ground; Ruling (Edited) In FED, R3 and R2 are out, B1 gets first. In NCAA/OBR, R2 and B1 are out and R3 returns to third. Easy."

 

[Coach Carl]

Did the BR reach first yet?  See bold below.

6.01(a)(11)

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE:

The runner is out and the ball is dead.

If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch; provided, however, if during an intervening play at the plate with less than two outs a runner scores, and then the batterrunner is called out for interference outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass, in running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, the runner is safe and the run shall count.

[johnnyg08]

37 minutes ago, Coach Carl said:

Did the BR reach first yet?  See bold below.

6.01(a)(11)

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE:

The runner is out and the ball is dead.

If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch; provided, however, if during an intervening play at the plate with less than two outs a runner scores, and then the batterrunner is called out for interference outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass, in running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, the runner is safe and the run shall count.

I think with two outs the batter/runner is out and no run scores. 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Coach Carl said:

Did the BR reach first yet?  See bold below.

6.01(a)(11)

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE:

The runner is out and the ball is dead.

If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch; provided, however, if during an intervening play at the plate with less than two outs a runner scores, and then the batterrunner is called out for interference outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass, in running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, the runner is safe and the run shall count.

What if the B-R has reached 1B at the time of the INT on the a high fly which is possible in the OP. Reached as in touched or legally attained. Carl has an answer which I think is appropriate for all codes but we have no definitive cites to back it up.

[johnnyg08]

18 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

What if the B-R has reached 1B at the time of the INT on the a high fly which is possible in the OP. Reached as in touched or legally attained. Carl has an answer which I think is appropriate for all codes but we have no definitive cites to back it up.

I'm unsure it matters. I mean, it's nothing in the scorebook. I think it's similar to a time play where there's R3, R2, 2 out and R3 crosses home plate before R2 is tagged out for the third out. 

Whether or not the BR reached 1B or not, that run scores. Maybe it's not similar, but I think conceptually it is. 

[maven]

14 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I'm unsure it matters. I mean, it's nothing in the scorebook. I think it's similar to a time play where there's R3, R2, 2 out and R3 crosses home plate before R2 is tagged out for the third out. 

Whether or not the BR reached 1B or not, that run scores. Maybe it's not similar, but I think conceptually it is. 

No, it's not similar conceptually at all, because one is an out called for INT (a penalty), and the other is an out made by the defense. If the cases have a similarity, it's similarity of outcome, not concept.

But I agree that they have that kind of simliarity: we have to call R2 out for the INT, not another runner. By rule, the out occurs at TOI, which is after R3 has scored. No force play; the BR doesn't make the 3rd out, so whether he's reached 1B is irrelevant. So count the run.

[Velho]

56 minutes ago, maven said:

So count the run.

What if the INT was intentional? It wasn't being done to prevent a double play (since there were two outs), so does the run still score?

Interesting situation. @johnnyg08 =  😈

[Coach Carl]

2 hours ago, maven said:

whether he's reached 1B is irrelevant

As I read the rule I see the logic as such:

Rule:  Runners return TOI

Exception:  If BR has not yet reached first, runners return TOP.

I did not see it as being important that the BR was out (to satisfy 5.08(a) exception), only that the runners are placed based on his position when the interference occurred. 

The expected ruling on interference with an infielder is:  (1) Runner is out, (2) BR is awarded 1B and (3) Other runners return unless forced.  Once the BR has obtained 1B, we're now far enough along that other plays are possible and the TOI standard is applicable.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, Coach Carl said:

The expected ruling on interference with an infielder is:  (1) Runner is out, (2) BR is awarded 1B and (3) Other runners return unless forced.  Once the BR has obtained 1B, we're now far enough along that other plays are possible and the TOI standard is applicable.

 Problem with that (and not arguing the rule but the incentives it creates) is on the @jimurrayalterego described high popup R3 crosses the plate, BR reaches 1B, R2 INT voila run scores. If the ball had been caught, no run would score. Why wouldn't the offset INT?

And if the argument is that's different since intentional (putting aside plausible deniability intentionality we see occur), what's the cite for no run scores?

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, Velho said:

 Problem with that (and not arguing the rule but the incentives it creates) is on the @jimurrayalterego described high popup R3 crosses the plate, BR reaches 1B, R2 INT voila run scores. If the ball had been caught, no run would score. Why wouldn't the offset INT?

And if the argument is that's different since intentional (putting aside plausible deniability intentionality we see occur), what's the cite for no run scores?

Yeah, I'm not wrapping my head around allowing a run to score on interference when there's literally no other way that run scores b/c the ball will be caught for the third out. 

I mean, SH*#, under that premise always interfere instead of run the bases on some SH*#ty pop up for the third out. 

[johnnyg08]

28 minutes ago, Velho said:

 Problem with that (and not arguing the rule but the incentives it creates) is on the @jimurrayalterego described high popup R3 crosses the plate, BR reaches 1B, R2 INT voila run scores. If the ball had been caught, no run would score. Why wouldn't the offset INT?

And if the argument is that's different since intentional (putting aside plausible deniability intentionality we see occur), what's the cite for no run scores?

Think about full count plays, could you hypothetically score two runs? Bases loaded, runners off/sprinting on the pitch, R1 interferes with F4 on the high pop up after R2 & R3 score. BR, touches first. score two runs, game over, 4-3 walk off. 

[MAUmpire]

Still learning to navigate the Fed rulebook but I only see a carve-out to return runners to TOP for an uncought foul ball (8-2-9). Otherwise the closest I can get is 8.4.2 Situation R:

With R3 on third base, R1 on first and two outs, B5 hits a fair slow roller toward first base. B5 interferes with F3, who is trying to field the ball. However, R3 scores before the interference. Does the run score since R3 touched home plate before the interference? RULING: The run does not score if the runner advances during action in which the third out is made by the batter-runner before touching first base. 

I agree completely with @johnnyg08 that the logical ruling would be to not count the run. With that said, with less than two outs I like @jimurrayalterego's solution, but with two outs and no possibility of a double play I can't find a way to either get R3 or BR, and I don't see a way to avoid (unhappily) scoring the run. 

[Richvee]

Fair play and common sense? Do we really want runners interfering to score a run that otherwise wouldn't score? 

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Fair play and common sense? Do we really want runners interfering to score a run that otherwise wouldn't score? 

We absolutely do not. 

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

We absolutely do not. 

Exactly. So there’s no way I’d let them score that run. Protest if you want. I’d be interested in what they decide. 😁

[The Man in Blue]

9 hours ago, Richvee said:

Fair play and common sense? Do we really want runners interfering to score a run that otherwise wouldn't score? 

While I agree . . . there is a contingent of umpires who argue that if it is written that way, that must be the way TPTB want it to be.

I, however, have a streak of anarchy in my blood.  I personally believe in using chaos to my advantage.  Since my life goal is to make the rulebook writers fix their problems and fix them the right way . . . score the run to force them to fix their shoddy work.

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Exactly. So there’s no way I’d let them score that run. Protest if you want. I’d be interested in what they decide. 😁

Truthfully, 100% chance you get less of an argument if you rule it this way. No one expect the run to count. 

[Velho]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

Fair play and common sense? Do we really want runners interfering to score a run that otherwise wouldn't score? 

While I agree . . . there is a contingent of umpires who argue that if it is written that way, that must be the way TPTB want it to be.

Exactly the reason for jury nulli... um, so, um. Yeah. Moving on.

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

ince my life goal is to make the rulebook writers fix their problems and fix them the right way . . .

Fun read: https://www.reddit.com/r/MaliciousCompliance/

53 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Truthfully, 100% chance you get less of an argument if you rule it this way. No one expect the run to count. 

[The Man in Blue]

14 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Truthfully, 100% chance you get less of an argument if you rule it this way. No one expect the run to count. 

Well . . . 50% (give or take) don't.  

[johnnyg08]

9 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Well . . . 50% (give or take) don't.  

Maybe in your area. I'll take the over in mine. 50% is generous. 

[The Man in Blue]

Simply saying the offense always expects the run to score.

Maybe it is that this used to be a gentlemen's game, so we accepted these things more readily.  Now, it is a blood feud and @$$#0!3s want everything.

[johnnyg08]

10 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Simply saying the offense always expects the run to score.

Maybe it is that this used to be a gentlemen's game, so we accepted these things more readily.  Now, it is a blood feud and @$$#0!3s want everything.

That's probably true. 

 

[Richvee]

20 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Simply saying the offense always expects the run to score.

Maybe it is that this used to be a gentlemen's game, so we accepted these things more readily.  Now, it is a blood feud and @$$#0!3s want everything.

If I got an argument from the offence, I might actually go to the MSU rulebook. "Coach, on that type of interference runners return time of pitch, so no run scores."

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, Richvee said:

If I got an argument from the offence, I might actually go to the MSU rulebook. "Coach, on that type of interference runners return time of pitch, so no run scores."

For sure. There's basically a 0% chance that they're going to refute that. Or to keep @The Man in Blue happy, at least 49.999% 😇