Call I had not seen in 27 years of coaching...
 

Runners at 1st and 2nd, nobody out. Batter bunts the ball in the air and starts running to 1B, both of the runners do a poor job of reading the ball in the air and get way too far off.

Catcher catches the pop up bunt, batter is out. Catcher then tries to throw to 1B because the runner has gotten too far off and did not tag up, ball hits the batter/runner going up the first base line who has no clue the C caught the ball.

Ball kicks right, runner at 1B gets back to the bag and then takes off for 2B, not really know what is happening and seeing the runner now running to 2B, the runner who was at 2B and was half way when bunt was caught never went back to tag up and just started to run to 3B.

So the runner from first who tagged legally will make it to 2B, however since the runner was supposed to tag left without tagging, are they "occupying" that base? so if you tag the 1b to 2b runner and step on the bag would it be a triple play?

It went for not because umpire killed the ball when he called intereference - he ended up calling the runner going back to 1B out since that was the throw that was intereferred with and even though the runner at 2B who never really tagged up they were allowed to return to 2B.

So then runner at 2B - two outs?

To me, shouldnt of been called dead ball, should of let play proceed then call it after?

Had it played out, what would of been call with runners at 2B?

If it was INT (which the umpire called), then he got it right -- the ball is immediately dead. R1 is out, R2 returns to the base occupied TOI (and from the way you worded it, R2 had not yet reached third.

If it was NOT INT, then R1 is allowed to occupy second and is not out if tagged while touching second. R2 is liable to be out on appeal.

Not sure what you mean by intentional? Batter runner was RH batter who was up in the front of the box started making their way towards the line but left foot as running up first was inside the line, the right foot was in the running lane, so it was the correct call of intereference, but not something they were trying to interfere with the throw, they just didnt realize exactly where they were in terms of the lane.

INT = Interference, not intentional.

Unless edited, I don't see intentional mentioned.

INT=Interference

Nevermind I saw the INT, but that is intereference, yes it was interference for sure - I misread the post.

One thing is we had him later in the day and he and I were talking and said as he thought about the call, he was saying he thought he should have called the lead runner out and left the runner at 1st instead of 2nd, but that made no sense to me because the play was being made on the runner he did call out and batter was for sure out.