Does the run count? Does rule set matter?

[BigBlue4u]

On 2/27/2026 at 11:25 AM, maven said:

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.

Agreed. 1) No advantage gained. 2) Spirit and intent of the rule.

[Velho]

1 hour 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."

And/or "Coach, why should you benefit from committing Interference?"

[Velho]

36 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

On 2/27/2026 at 11:25 AM, maven said:

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.

Agreed. 1) No advantage gained. 2) Spirit and intent of the rule.

So @BigBlue4u & @maven, your position (said without malice) is the run scores.

Does that change with intentional INT to prevent a catch for 3rd out - which means the run would NOT score?

[TheLovejoy]

On 3/1/2026 at 10:23 AM, Richvee said:

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

  I would agree with this, except there are 4,863 other threads in this forum where all of us admit, 'I don't like the rule. But, it's not my job to like it; It's my job to enforce it.'

  So, if we start making exceptions to situations based on common sense, am I allowed to just wave a balk off if it didn't affect the play, or let a FPSR at 2b go because the runner was out at 1st anyways, and the runner on 3rd scored? 

I just mean, THIS is the one, out of all of the others, where we are allowed to change a ruling based on spirit of the rule, and not what the book says?

[Velho]

So @TheLovejoy I'll extend this to you: your position (said without malice) is the run scores.

Does that change with intentional INT to prevent a catch for 3rd out - which means the run would NOT score?

[TheLovejoy]

56 minutes ago, Velho said:

So @TheLovejoy I'll extend this to you: your position (said without malice) is the run scores.

Does that change with intentional INT to prevent a catch for 3rd out - which means the run would NOT score?

For absolute clarification, I'm not a purist, and all those saying that we 'should not allow the run to score', I'm in the same boat. That it isn't the spirit of the rule, and we don't want them to interfere on purpose to allow the run to score. My comment was just that, we've always had everybody on this forum saying, "I'm obligated to rule it as written, and not based on my personal opinion." And now, we're like...'buuuuuuut, in this case, I can do it because I don't like the ruling.'

To answer you:
Yes.
I score the run since it happened after the interference, as the rule and penalty are written.

However, with 'Intentional Interference', I think we can establish that it was done in order to change another outcome. I'd reference one of the scenarios where intentional interference actually calls out the runner closest to home, as a bigger penalty. In this case, to maximize the penalty, you know it was done to allow a run to score, you have to call the runner, 'who already scored?' out, because the intentional interference was done just for that. 

[The Man in Blue]

 

5 hours ago, TheLovejoy said:

  I would agree with this, except there are 4,863 other threads in this forum where all of us admit, 'I don't like the rule. But, it's not my job to like it; It's my job to enforce it.'

  So, if we start making exceptions to situations based on common sense, am I allowed to just wave a balk off if it didn't affect the play, or let a FPSR at 2b go because the runner was out at 1st anyways, and the runner on 3rd scored? 

I just mean, THIS is the one, out of all of the others, where we are allowed to change a ruling based on spirit of the rule, and not what the book says?

 

Oh, no, no, no, Lovejoy . . . In that case, it is OK for me to pick and choose.  

[The Man in Blue]

7 hours 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."

The vast majority of coaches who would come out on this are most likely the "I don't know, I just want the run" types.   

Like many things in our beautiful game, the odds of this situation arising are minute, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few who might pick up on this.  This is more likely if this starts popping up in discussions.

.

[BigBlue4u]

On 3/2/2026 at 12:22 PM, TheLovejoy said:

So, if we start making exceptions to situations based on common sense, am I allowed to just wave a balk off if it didn't affect the play, or let a FPSR at 2b go because the runner was out at 1st anyways, and the runner on 3rd scored? 

TheLovejoy,

Ahhhhhhh common sense.  Where are thou?  One of the differences between an umpire who is well-regarded and an umpire who is not well-regarded is his ability to use common-sense and his ability to know when to use it.

[TheLovejoy]

1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said:

TheLovejoy,

Ahhhhhhh common sense.  Where are thou?  One of the differences between an umpire who is well-regarded and an umpire who is not well-regarded is his ability to use common-sense and his ability to know when to use it.

Literally common sense tells me that if the pitcher balks on his pickoff to 1st, and overthrows the first baseman down the line, and the runner makes it to 3rd, I should let him stay at 3rd. But the rule says it's a dead ball, and he stays at 2nd. 
I'm not here to enforce common sense. I'm here to enforce the rules as they are written. When Common Sense starts writing the rules, I'll start enforcing them that way. 

[Velho]

32 minutes ago, TheLovejoy said:

if the pitcher balks on his pickoff to 1st, and overthrows the first baseman down the line, and the runner makes it to 3rd, I should let him stay at 3rd. But the rule says it's a dead ball, and he stays at 2nd. 

I follow your argument (and 99.9% agree) but your hypothetical is only kind of true in NFHS (since the ball was dead with the balk nothing else after ever matters) and not true in NCAA and OBR (R1 stays at 3B in that situation).

[TheLovejoy]

6 minutes ago, Velho said:

I follow your argument (and 99.9% agree) but your hypothetical is only kind of true in NFHS (since the ball was dead with the balk nothing else after ever matters) and not true in NCAA and OBR (R1 stays at 3B in that situation).

Yes, of course. I thought this was an NFHS conversation for some reason. But looking back I realize it wasn't directed that way, but that is what I meant referencing that. Sorry for that generalized argument. 

I do appreciate you knowing 'what I mean', haha, instead of taking it literal and technical by the words I use. You must be married and have practice with that. 
 

[maven]

On 3/1/2026 at 12:23 PM, Richvee said:

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

As usual in this kind of situation, we have 2 options.

1. Enforce the rule as written and interpreted, prompting an eventual change to the rule, or
2. MSU, roll the dice with a protest committee/assigner/state commissioner on the fairness question.

That whole stick is poopy. Maybe one end is a bit less so, because everyone will expect that no run scores. The expected call sneaks by almost always, right or wrong.

[Richvee]

On 3/7/2026 at 10:14 AM, maven said:

As usual in this kind of situation, we have 2 options.

1. Enforce the rule as written and interpreted, prompting an eventual change to the rule, or
2. MSU, roll the dice with a protest committee/assigner/state commissioner on the fairness question.

That whole stick is poopy. Maybe one end is a bit less so, because everyone will expect that no run scores. The expected call sneaks by almost always, right or wrong.

The more I think about it, if this happens in a big ame with the chances of such a play going viral, either scenario could very well lead to a rule clarification/change. 

[Richvee]

On 3/2/2026 at 3:22 PM, TheLovejoy said:

  I would agree with this, except there are 4,863 other threads in this forum where all of us admit, 'I don't like the rule. But, it's not my job to like it; It's my job to enforce it.'

  So, if we start making exceptions to situations based on common sense, am I allowed to just wave a balk off if it didn't affect the play, or let a FPSR at 2b go because the runner was out at 1st anyways, and the runner on 3rd scored? 

I just mean, THIS is the one, out of all of the others, where we are allowed to change a ruling based on spirit of the rule, and not what the book says?

I can't think of any of those 4,863 threads where the offense commits an infraction and is awarded a run that wouldn't score had the offense played by the rules. 

[TheLovejoy]

48 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I can't think of any of those 4,863 threads where the offense commits an infraction and is awarded a run that wouldn't score had the offense played by the rules. 

You're probably not wrong, but did you search them ALL??? 

Perhaps I was over-simplifying it, or trying to hard to find a reason to 'justify' it. 
I just mean, we have a rule, that states 'if beyond first base, then it's penalized at the time of the interference'. We have a rule that tells us to do that. And here we are, saying, "I'm not going to enforce that rule because I don't believe in it. Instead, I'm not scoring the run." In person, in a game, I absolutely would do that, and not score the run. 100%

Do remember Richvee, I'm in favor of not counting the run. I'm just pointing out some Devils advocate thing, double standards, common sense, whatever you wanna call it.

You're right that it would probably need to happen on a big stage where rules committees would need to see it in action, and finish the sentence at the end of the rule: "unless it allows a run to score", or something.

[Richvee]

6 hours ago, TheLovejoy said:

You're probably not wrong, but did you search them ALL??? 

Perhaps I was over-simplifying it, or trying to hard to find a reason to 'justify' it. 
I just mean, we have a rule, that states 'if beyond first base, then it's penalized at the time of the interference'. We have a rule that tells us to do that. And here we are, saying, "I'm not going to enforce that rule because I don't believe in it. Instead, I'm not scoring the run." In person, in a game, I absolutely would do that, and not score the run. 100%

Do remember Richvee, I'm in favor of not counting the run. I'm just pointing out some Devils advocate thing, double standards, common sense, whatever you wanna call it.

You're right that it would probably need to happen on a big stage where rules committees would need to see it in action, and finish the sentence at the end of the rule: "unless it allows a run to score", or something.

I’m with ya. I’m on a big believer in “well, what other rules don’t you want me to enforce today?”  This one just seems like a loophole that hasn’t been closed. 

[Velho]

Did we touch on the end of 6.01(a)(10)? That seems to at least put to bed not scoring the run on intentional interference (which escalated this from the whole stick being poopy to the whole stick being made of poop, imo).

 

6.01 (a)(10) If the batter-runner is adjudged not to have hindered a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, and if the base runner’s interference is adjudged not to be intentional, the batter-runner shall be awarded first base;