Squeeze play situation

[UmpJM]

S.D. Steve,

My pleasure.

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. ...

JM

[mcrowder]

Um.... you can't "occupy" home plate.

[nickrego]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Um.... you can't "occupy" home plate.

Why not ?

The moment you touch the base, you are occupying it.

There is no rule that says how soon you have to vacate the base. There was no impending play from another runner, so he could stay put until he is sure of the umpire's call.

If there was an impending play, then the runner would have to vacate the area of the next play.

But it is an interesting concept...The occupation of Home Plate.

I don't recall that ever being discussed here.

[UmpJM]

mcrowder & S.D. Steve,

While I certainly get your point that "occupying home plate" is kind of a strange concept, I believe that, by rule, the R3 in TwoBits' original sitch fulfills the requirements from exemption from unintentional interference stated in the highlighted section of 7.08(b) I quoted above.

I believe that the letter, spirit, & intent of the rule is to exempt a runner who is "in contact" with a base (any base) as long as he is "legally" in contact with that base. Per 7.01, the R3 meets the requirement.

I believe that TwoBits' description was intended to convey the point that the R3 was touching home at the time the contact with F2 occurred. Otherwise, he wouldn't have posed the "variation" at the very end of his initial post.

JM

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

I believe that the letter, spirit, & intent of the rule is to exempt a runner who is "in contact" with a base (any base) as long as he is "legally" in contact with that base. Per 7.01, the R3 meets the requirement.

No, the letter, spirit, and intent of the rule is not to force a runner from vacating the only safe space he has in order to keep from interfering with a fielder. Home plate is not a "safe space" in the way that bases are. What would the purpose of a rule saying a runner could stand on home plate and not be guilty of interference be? There's no reason for him to stay there like there is at other bases (i.e. protection from the chance of being put out).

[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

[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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by nickrego

Why not ?

The moment you touch the base, you are occupying it. There is no rule that says how soon you have to vacate the base. There was no impending play from another runner, so he could stay put until he is sure of the umpire's call. If there was an impending play, then the runner would have to vacate the area of the next play. But it is an interesting concept...The occupation of Home Plate. I don't recall that ever being discussed here.

The rule you mention applies to a runner who has achieved (or stayed on) a base and needs the protection of that base in order to prevent being tagged out. This is why a runner OCCUPIES the base - he can't leave without putting himself in jeopardy. None of this is true about home plate.

The runner in this sitch TOUCHED home plate, but doesn't occupy home plate. If you could occupy home plate, we'd have sitches here described as: 1 out, 1-1 count, R1 on Home, R2 on 2nd. Home plate is not a safe haven like a base is (in most cases). Similarly, if you find 2 runners on a base, one can be tagged out, as only 1 can OCCUPY that base legally. But two runners on the plate is nothing.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Thank you, I was looking in the wrong place, under interference instead of any runner out.

I think it would be hard to give the runner "legally occupied base" status given the wording of the original play, as well as the fact that home plate is never "occupied," but is merely touched.

He said the runner collided with the catcher just as he touched home plate. It would certainly seem that he made contact prior to the touch, but you would HTBT to know for sure. Maybe we can get more information from Two Bits.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Thank you, I was looking in the wrong place, under interference instead of any runner out.

I think it would be hard to give the runner "legally occupied base" status given the wording of the original play, as well as the fact that home plate is never "occupied," but is merely touched.

He said the runner collided with the catcher just as he touched home plate. It would certainly seem that he made contact prior to the touch, but you would HTBT to know for sure. Maybe we can get more information from Two Bits.

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.

[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]

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

[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.