This one's on interference. In the FED Case Book, page 17, 2.21.1 Situation B it says, "R1 is on third and R2 on second. B4 hits down the left field line. R1 scores, but R2 maliciously runs over F5 after R1 touches home plate. RULING: Interference because of malicious contact...R1's run counts because he scored before the interference."

BUT

Case Book, page 19, 2.32.2 Situation B says, "R1 on third and R2 on first with no outs. A ground ball is hit to F6, who throws to F4 at second base. R2 slides out of the base path in an attempt to prevent F4 from turning the double play. RULING: Since R2 did not slide directly into second base, R2 is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. R1 returns to third base, the base occupied at the time of the pitch."

WHY does the run count in the first play, but not in the second, if both runners had touched the plate before the interference? Why, why, why-o-why?

It doesnt say that the runner at third got home but i dont understand why the batter is out.

Force play slide rule.

The interference prevented a potential DP, thus the BR is out, as well as the kid going into 2B.

Malicious vs FPSR
 

The difference is in the penalties for the rules.

Malicious contact penalty - play one

Force play slide rule penalty - play two.

thanks
David

<i> Originally posted by JJ </i>


<b> WHY does the run count in the first play, but not in the second, if both runners had touched the plate before the interference? Why, why, why-o-why? </b>

You need to read the rules.

In the second situation the FPSR was in effect, therefore according to FED rule 8-4-2runnrs return to their TOP bases.

In the first situation read FED rule 3-3-1n. If the malicious contact occured after the run scores, then the run counts and the player Ejected. If the Malicious contact occurred before the run scored, then we have an out and an Ej.

Two different set of circumstances with different rules applying.

Pete Booth

You're stating the obvious. I DID read the rules - I just didn't understand why the run counted in one and didn't in the other, and the rules still don't explain that clearly. But thanks for the burn...

JJ - did you read the rest of this post? The other posts DID answer your question. Why do you still have a question as to the reason for the difference? They are applying different rules... therefore, different rulings and different results.

I think JJ is asking "WHY are the rules different?"

That is, suppose we were developing rules for HS baseball. We have these great ideas that malicious contact and illegal slides should not be allowed. Everyone agrees. Now we, as the rules committee, need to decide on the penalty for violating these rules. Would we come up with "in one case a run scores and in another it does not?"

OR, given that the various rules committees through the years have come up with these penalties, should we petition to have one of them changed?

The only thing I could figure is they are thinking that since the run scored before the interence then technically he is no longer a runner and thus cannot be put back. It falls in line with a runner scoring and then maliciously contacting the catcher. The run there counts but that same player that scored the run is ejected.

Now figure the logic that the run does not count if the player is FORCED, scores then makes the malicious contact. I still cannot figure that one out since once he scored the force is basicly off.

OBR basically has the same rule on a double play where interference has occured.

7.09(g) "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner."

I would guess that FED, since on a FPSR violation they call both the FPSR violator and the BR out, they tried to be consistent with OBR and not allow any runs to score on such a play. I'm not exactly sure why OBR originally would not allow a run to score on such a play, except that they wanted to give additional penalty to interference on a double play. On this point, at least NFHS is consistent.

Since the runner has already scored in the malicious contact play, there is no rule that allows that run to be taken off the board, by the runners actions alone after scoring. The penalty for post-scoring malicious contact is simply ejection.

Is there any other play in which a runner can be called out and/or his run disallowed after scoring, for something that occurs after the runner has crossed the plate?

<i> Originally posted by JJ </i>


<b> I DID read the rules - I just didn't understand why the run counted in one and didn't in the other, and the rules still don't explain that clearly. But thanks for the burn... </b>

First off I do not BURN anyone, I merely stated my answer to your question but be that as it may.

The beauty of FED is in it's Case Book Analysis.

Reference the following Case Plays in regards to the subject matter at hand.

Check Out FED case plays

3.3.1K thru 3.3.1O

And

8.4.2Q and 8.4.2Y

As far as your question about why is one run allowed to score in one situation vs. another lies in the type of play meaning.

If there is an <i> Intervening play </i> and not a Force Play situation and malicious contact occurs AFTER runner scored then the run counts and player ejected.

In addition to the FED Case book analysis, Carl Childress explains fully in his BRD with additional Case Play analysis.

As to question why, why, why

The FED wanted to penalize Malicious Contact with more then simply an EJ as in the Case of OBR. Unlike the other sports where a Malicious Act is penalized, ie; in football a 15 yard penalty and an automatic first down; Basketball 2 free throws plus the ball, baseball has No penalty other than an EJ. FED wants to penalize.

Pete Booth

INT vs MC Penalty Difference
 

Great question/dilemma. Let me give this a go.

INT: (Add other situations below)
1. On B at home plate during steal attempt
2. On B/R on play at the plate
3. On B/R outside running/lane to first
4. On R during DP attempt (see FPSR vs FSPR???)
5. On R touching any base, except IFR
6. On R between bases (ala Jackson, A-Rod)

MC: "The umpire's judgement" is just that, no further explanation needed. I recommend reading the following thread on MC; Erstad - Estrada Collision at the plate by CoachJM.

It boils down to FPSR vs FSPR???
1. The actual rule is the Force Play Slide Rule. It protects the defense from injury only during a simple force play. A great rule, and easier to apply.
2. There is NO Forced Slide Play Rule when a tag is required. However, due to factors such as sportsmanship, injuries, hospital bills, etc.; Rule Committees now emphasize a MC rule on any TAG PLAY. A great rule, but much more difficult to apply.

Why the difference in penalties:
1. INT is just that, penalize it by rule.
2. MC is totally a judgment call. Think about the fielder who drops/misses the ball completely before applying the tag during a slide play. How does an umpire decide whether a proper slide or MC jars the ball loose? Will you impede a runners progress because of poor defensive skills? To borrow the famous line, "If INT doesn't fit, then you must acquit (:MC:)."

Play BALL! Play FAIR!

Thanks, Pete, for doing a little more digging and documentation. OK, so it wasn't a burn....but I did get a little warm ;) Consider the source when you reply - I DO read the rules. I was just looking for a bit more info than my feeble brain was able to string together.