Squeeze play situation

[TwoBits]

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?

[BigUmp56]

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

[LMan]

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.

[mcrowder]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

[UmpJM]

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),

...the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder...

.

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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