[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

What rules basis do you have for saying you can't assume that? The more "normal" 2-out interference is with a runner committing intentional interference to break up a double play - you "assume" that the 2nd out would have been made in that case... why is this play any different? The rules simply say the Umpire is to rule a 2nd out as well if in his judgement the interference prevented a double play. This sitch is no different (and is also supported by the common sense idea that the offense should not benefit from interference).

The runner at 2nd interfered before she was put out. This requires the trailing runner to be called out. That would be the BR. Still can't get the runner from third out.