[Bfair]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

The original scenario had the dugout emptying onto the area around home plate BEFORE R2 came home. That clearly brings 7.09(e) into play for that runner.

I don't know if I agree with your statment, Warren.
The original post states:

The first runner goes past home and the dugout empties.

While I might accept an understanding that the passing of the plate was simultaneous with the dugout emptying, I think your statement that it occurred before the runner scored is absolutely wrong. Even you seem to be disagreeing with your own statement, Warren. Look at the following sequence of events that you wrote. It doesn't seem to state the dugout emptied before the runner passed the plate---does it?

---

Originally posted by Warren Willson

The actual sequence of events from the original scenario was:

1. R3 comes home but fails to touch the plate in passing

2. The dugout empties and players congregate around home plate preventing the catcher from finding the ball

3. The 3rd base coach comes down to home plate and assists R3 to touch the base

4. R2 arrives within 3 feet of home plate and U1 says he didn't touch home - PU says she didn't see it either way.

5. In the meantime, BR has acquired 2nd base.

Looking at your stated sequence of events, Warren........
It would seem to me that the players interfered with the catcher before the actions of the coach (as you show it), by congregating and apparently preventing the catcher from retrieving the ball to make a play. With that said, the actions of the coach would be meaningless since the ball should have been declared dead due to interference prior to the coach's intervention. Due to the interference, the player most likely to be played against should be declared out and other runners returned to base occupied at time of incident.

So....who do YOU think F2 was playing against? R2 or R1?
My bet would be R2 since playing on R1 would be meaningless if R1 was the game winning run. He's obviously still in your "plate area" since the team is around home plate to congratulate him. Therefore, by your standards, he is not appealable but can still be played upon. Common sense would say R2 would be the runner declared out for the interference. BUT, that would mean that R1 would be returned to 3B and the BR likely returned to 1B.

Or do you allow play to continue after the teammates have interfered with the F2’s play?

---

IMO, there is information lacking from this scenario in order to make a judgment.
That is why I did not comment earlier.

Did the presence of the teammates actually interfere with F2’s ability to retrieve the ball and make whatever play F2 wished to attempt---assumably a tag or appeal on R2? If R2 was not attempting to return an touch the plate, couldn’t F2 still have retrieved the ball to either apppeal (by my standards) or play upon (by Warren's standards) R2 for his baserunning infraction?

Did R1 continue attempt to score and merely miss the plate when joining in the festivities? If R1 was considered as scored, then the action of the coach could not have interfered since R2 could not have legally been able to return to touch the plate---with or without the coach’s physical assistance. How could the coach interfere by assisting a runner in a running responsibility that could not legally occur?

While there seems to be discussion regarding the touching of the plate by both R2 and R1, when was time out declared? Did F2 have opportunity to attempt further appeal before time was declared and merely chose not to attempt, or did the officials declare time due to the presence of the offensive team and before F2 was able to gather the ball?

Perhaps a more detailed explanation regarding the timing of some issues, attempts made by fielders and runners, and actions of umpires during the situation might help lead to a better chance at an accurate response.


Just my opinion,

Freix




[Edited by Bfair on Jul 24th, 2003 at 01:10 AM]