Squeeze play situation
 

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

R3 coming home on a suicide squeeze. The bunt is laid down about 3 feet in front of home plate. R3 and catcher collide just as R3 touches home plate. Contact by R3 not malicious, but does knock catcher away from the play far enough that speedy batter winds up safe at first base.

Now I know that if the batter and catcher collide on a bunt, it is typically ruled the proverbal "train wreck" and play on. How about this situation? What if this occured and contact between R3 and catcher occured before R3 touched the plate?

You have to ask yourself if R3 could have reached the plate safely by attempting to avoid the catcher, or did the catcher suddenly move into his basepath in an attempt to retire the runner. Sounds more like a train wreck to me. They both appeared to be doing what they were supposed to be doing.



Tim.

[edited to remove the preposition my last sentence ended on]LOL

HTBT, but the thought on train wrecks is, "are both players where they should be, doing what they need to do?"

If so, play on. A ball 3 feet in front of the plate would put F2 about on top of the plate, so absent intent I dont see dinging the runner for anything here.

While that logic holds specifically for a catcher and BR getting tangled, it is not true for ANY OTHER fielder / runner interaction. The FIELDER has right of way in fielding a batted ball. If PU feels that F2 was the fielder that should be protected in fielding this batted ball (as opposed to F1 or F5, for example), then F2 is afforded protection from a runner, including one charging from third. This sounds like interference to me.

TwoBits,

I believe that in your original sitch there is NOT interference, but NOT for the reasons suggested by Tim and LMan. Rather it is because, according to your description (if I'm reading it correctly),

.

By rule, this exempts the R3 from liability for (unintentional) interference with a protected fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball.

If he is NOT in contact with a base at the time he "failed to avoid" a protected fielder, he is properly called out, the ball is dead, the batter is awarded 1B, and any other runners return to their TOP base unless forced by the BR's award.

The protection afforded a BR on a tangle/untangle with the catcher while leaving the box is exclusive to the BR, and does not apply by rule or principle to any other runner. What the R3 should have been doing (again, were he not in contact with the base) is "avoiding the fielder".

So, except for the fact that the R3 was in contact with the base at the time of contact, I agree with mcrowder.

JM

Please cite the rule reference you quoted, because I have never seen these words in print, and cannot find it in the rule book anywhere.

S.D. Steve,

My pleasure.

JM

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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.

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?:confused:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Hmmm,

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

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

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