Squeeze play situation

[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 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.

[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