Squeeze play situation

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

R3 and catcher tied getting to the plate

Okay, seriously, R3 beat the catcher to the plate and contact between R3 and catcher occured on the plate.

Then here's the question of the day. Did the catcher have possession of the ball when both he and the runner got to the plate? I may have read your initial post wrong, but I though in reading it that he did have possession, and was turning to make a tag when the contact occured. To me this is a tricky one because the runner has the right of way to homeplate when he's in that close of a vicinity. He doesn't have to veer off and entirely miss homeplate if F2 is moving out to field a batted ball just to give way to the fielder if in fact F2 didn't have possesion of the ball.



Tim.

[UmpJM]

mcrowder,

While I would certainly agree with your assertion that the rule allows a (non-forced) runner to remain in contact with a base, I believe it also allows him to attempt to reach an advance base. If he is successful, and is in contact with his advance base at the time contact with a protected fielder occurs, the rule says he is exempt from interference.

In terms of the rule, I don't see anything that suggests home is treated differently.

Have you got anything that says he would not be protected? Because the actual texe of the rule says he is protected.

JM

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Then here's the question of the day. Did the catcher have possession of the ball when both he and the runner got to the plate? I may have read your initial post wrong, but I though in reading it that he did have possession, and was turning to make a tag when the contact occured. To me this is a tricky one because the runner has the right of way to homeplate when he's in that close of a vicinity. He doesn't have to veer off and entirely miss homeplate if F2 is moving out to field a batted ball just to give way to the fielder if in fact F2 didn't have possesion of the ball.



Tim.

Tim,

In the initial sitch, the F2 does not have possession of the ball. He is attempting to field a fair batted ball. The R3, if not in contact with a base, must avoid the fielder (assuming he is the "protected fielder" on the play), and has no right of way relative to that fielder.

JM

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

This happened this weekend, USSSA rules played under OBR with typical safety related modifications:

I think the intent rule 7.08 is as MC stated, I'm going to take it a bit further however. It is to protect a runner who is occupying the base at TOP.
What if:
Runner on 2nd two outs.
popup to F5. F5 is standing on third with one foot on middle of bag other foot next to bag foul side. R2 running on hit comes into third standing touches bag and momentum takes him into F5 all the while maintaining contact with base. F5 gets pushed to side ball drops just behind 3rd in fair territory. Are you letting that go as 7.08 would dictate?
Not me. I've got interference all the way.
Plus as stated in the above posting "typical safety related modifications"
Ususally that means avoid contact.
In the original sitch runner sees ball in front of plate, runner knows catcher does not have ball. Runner can slide catcher can step over or around sliding runner. I've got interference here as well. But since he touched home prior to the interference the run counts.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I've got interference here as well. But since he touched home prior to the interference the run counts.

If the penalty for interference is that the runner is out and the ball is dead, how do you justify scoring the runner you are calling out for interference?

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If the penalty for interference is that the runner is out and the ball is dead, how do you justify scoring the runner you are calling out for interference?

He scored prior to the interference, it's not a retroactive penalty.

How bout this.
Bases loaded no outs. base hit to left. R3 scores, then comes back up the 3rd base line to try and get bat out of way for following runner. However in doing so he interferes with F1 taking throw from left.
What's your call?

Are you taking R3s run away?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Tim,

In the initial sitch, the F2 does not have possession of the ball. He is attempting to field a fair batted ball. The R3, if not in contact with a base, must avoid the fielder (assuming he is the "protected fielder" on the play), and has no right of way relative to that fielder.

JM

If it's true that the catcher didn't yet have possession of the ball, and I'm betting you're right, I still have a hard time reconciling myself to judging this as interference when the runner and catcher contacted each other on top of the plate. I understand that F2 is most likely the priveledged fielder, but does that mean the runner has to give himself up by missing homeplate and putting himself in jeapordy?


Tim.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by NIump50

He scored prior to the interference, it's not a retroactive penalty.

How bout this.
Bases loaded no outs. base hit to left. R3 scores, then comes back up the 3rd base line to try and get bat out of way for following runner. However in doing so he interferes with F1 taking throw from left.
What's your call?


Are you taking R3s run away?

There is no such animal as a retroactive interference penalty. You're equating this to interference by another teamate, when that doesn't apply. If this is interference, it's runners interference. Dead ball, R3 is out, all runners return.


Tim.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

mcrowder,While I would certainly agree with your assertion that the rule allows a (non-forced) runner to remain in contact with a base, I believe it also allows him to attempt to reach an advance base. If he is successful, and is in contact with his advance base at the time contact with a protected fielder occurs, the rule says he is exempt from interference.

Sure it does - I agree... he is exempt from interference while touching his advance base as well - because if he were to stray from this bag, he would be in jeopardy.

In terms of the rule, I don't see anything that suggests home is treated differently.

It's completely different - one does not OCCUPY home plate. In fact, the mere act of touching home changes you from a runner to a runner who has scored (which, in the context of several other rules, merely makes you an offensive teammate, equivalent at best to a coach, and no longer a runner). There is no reason to need to use home plate as a save haven protecting you from being tagged - as once you've touched home, you've scored.

Have you got anything that says he would not be protected? Because the actual texe of the rule says he is protected.

Well, first the rule refers to a base, not to home plate, but I can see where one might use different rules to assume the plate is the same as a base. But more importantly, if a runner has scored, he's no longer a runner - I can't see this rule as saying he's protected anymore once he is no longer a runner.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

There is no such animal as a retroactive interference penalty. You're equating this to interference by another teamate, when that doesn't apply. If this is interference, it's runners interference. Dead ball, R3 is out, all runners return.


Tim.

Exactly, If you read what I was responding to you would understand.
SD steve wanted to know how I could allow the run to score if there was interference. R3 scored then interfered, run scores. To discount the score it would have to be a retro penalty, and as you have correctly stated there is no such thing.
And it's not runners interference, that's my point, once R3 scores he is no longer a runner

[UmpJM]

Hmmm,

When in doubt, I go to the rules and then the interpretations.

Here is what the rules say (all are OBR cites):

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