Hmmm,
When in doubt, I go to the rules and then the interpretations.
Here is what the rules say (all are OBR cites):
Quote:
2.00
A BASE is one of four points which must be touched by a runner in order to score a run; more usually applied to the canvas bags and the rubber plate which mark the base points.
1.05
Home base shall be marked by a five sided slab of whitened rubber. ...
2.00
A RUNNER is an offensive player who is advancing toward, or touching, or returning to any base.
7.01
A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base.
7.08
Any runner is out when_ ....(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire's judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. ...
|
While I understand that one cannot always go by a
strictly literal reading of the rules, I have checked JEA, J/R, the BRD, and the MLBUM and am unable to find
anything that suggests such a literal reading would not apply in the situation posed by TwoBits. Hence, I am inclined to believe that the literal reading is correct and the R3 is
not liable for an interference call in the situation posed.
Home plate/base is most certainly "a base", and the runner who is "touching" that base is
still a "runner" - at least according to what the rules say. Since his contact with the base is legal, his contact with the (presumably) "protected" fielder who is attempting to field a fair batted ball is,
by rule,
not interference.
Live ball, play on.
Having said all of this, I will say that I do find mcrowder's comments on the situation perfectly logical and somewhat persuasive, though ultimately unconvincing. It would not shock me if he were able to post an Official Interpretation or Authoritative Opinion (or rule) that supported his position on the situation in question; but I certainly haven't seen him do so.
If I understand him correctly, his position is that the R3 would be charged with "interference by an offensive teammate" (though I did find his "..equivalent at best to a coach..." comment needlessly derogatory - to the poor runner), resulting in the
BR being called out. Since the R3 has already scored, his run would stand unless, of course, the out on the BR was the 3rd out of the half inning. While I would agree that this
coud be the proper ruling on the situation posed, I do not believe it
is.
JM