What is the call..

[ref49873]

Had this situation last night. Fed rules. Bases loaded no outs. B1 hits ball back to F1 who throws home for force out. None of the other runners attempt to advance, so F2 throws to F5 for force out at 3rd base. Now runner that was forced out at third didn't realize he was out and gets caught is rundown and is tagged out again. Same runner can't make two outs.

Should there be two outs or three for interference?

Thanks for you opinoins.

[UmpJM]

ref49873,

Just two outs. A retired runner who continues to attempt to advance is explicitly NOT interfering by that fact alone. (8.3.3g) He could still do something ELSE which would be interference, but just continuing his advance is NOT interference.

The defense bears some responsibility for realizing that they have retired the runner.

JM

[shickenbottom]

Originally Posted by ref49873

Had this situation last night. Fed rules. Bases loaded no outs. B1 hits ball back to F1 who throws home for force out. None of the other runners attempt to advance, so F2 throws to F5 for force out at 3rd base. Now runner that was forced out at third didn't realize he was out and gets caught is rundown and is tagged out again. Same runner can't make two outs.

Should there be two outs or three for interference?

Thanks for you opinoins.

The defense should know the situation. R3 going to home is out on the play at home (F1 thrown to F2 and the assumed touch of home and the umpires call of the out). F2 thew ball to F5 getting R2 out @ 3rd assuming the touch of 3rd. Now the rundown ensues, this is the defenses problem, if R1 makes it safely to 2nd and the B/R makes it to first. Don't kill this as it occurs. Once R3 is tagged out, don't signal the out here, he's already out.

On the flip side, a case could be made for interference on R3 getting caught in a rundown. However, since two outs were recorded on the play, I'd let let this slide, because of the quick 1st out being made on R3 at home, and your description that the runners did not realize how quick everything occurred.

Without seeing the actions of R3, specifically and intentionally wanting to get caught in a rundown to advance the runners beyond the bases they would have reached (R1 to 2nd and then 3rd,B/R to 1st and then 2nd). In this case, then you call R1 out on the interference, but this would be a huge stretch to award a tripple play. Let the DP go and get make sure the runners are at 1st & 2nd unless mitigating circumstances warrant runners at 2nd & 3rd.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by shickenbottom

On the flip side, a case could be made for interference on R3 getting caught in a rundown.

Nah. Not unless he jumped up and down shouting, "Get me! Get me! I'm right here!"

[shickenbottom]

Lman & CoachJM,

As I indicated it would be a stretch to "Award" the Tripple Play. But a case could be made, a fairly weak one, absent of any overt intentional actions by R3. It would seriously depend on that runners actions. Anthing short of calling attention to himself should be dismissed and the defense needs to take the DP and run. If the runners advance to 2nd & 3rd without this intentional act, good for the offence because they knew the situation and were paying attention. As for the defense, pay a little more attention to the situation and you might have gotten the Tripple Play, but as it is, some people were asleep at the wheel.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by shickenbottom

...
On the flip side, a case could be made for interference on R3 getting caught in a rundown. However, since two outs were recorded on the play, I'd let let this slide, because of the quick 1st out being made on R3 at home, and your description that the runners did not realize how quick everything occurred.

Without seeing the actions of R3, specifically and intentionally wanting to get caught in a rundown to advance the runners beyond the bases they would have reached (R1 to 2nd and then 3rd,B/R to 1st and then 2nd). In this case, then you call R1 out on the interference, ...

shickenbottom,



FWIW, I do agree with the remainder of your post.

JM

[gsf23]

Agree with Shickenbottom there.

Unless his actions resulted in the runners being able to move up an EXTRA base, then I think you just have nothing.

Wouldn't it be maybe just good game management to kill the play as soon as the runners made their one base and just avoid the potential for this situation all together? Or if you don't want to kill it maybe just point at the runner and give an out call so everyone knows what is going on.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by gsf23

Wouldn't it be maybe just good game management to kill the play as soon as the runners made their one base and just avoid the potential for this situation all together?

Kill it when? During continuous action?


Even if the runners cannot advance further under normal circumstances, you have the chance of an overthrow into DBT (or not), etc........to do otherwise rewards players for not being 'situationally aware'

[UmpJM]

gsf23,

Even if the other runners DO advance because the retired runner deked the defense into playing on him in a rundown, you STILL have nothing.

Killing the play would NOT be good game management, it would be the umpire playing DEFENSE.

JM

[gsf23]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

gsf23,

Even if the other runners DO advance because the retired runner deked the defense into playing on him in a rundown, you STILL have nothing.

Killing the play would NOT be good game management, it would be the umpire playing DEFENSE.

JM

If that is the case it's all good. I just seem to remember reading a case play where a runner who was put out continued to home, drawing a throw which got by the catcher allowing another run to score and the ruling was interefence. Maybe I'm thinking of another rule set. Wouldn't be the first time.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by gsf23

Agree with Shickenbottom there.

Unless his actions resulted in the runners being able to move up an EXTRA base, then I think you just have nothing.

Wouldn't it be maybe just good game management to kill the play as soon as the runners made their one base and just avoid the potential for this situation all together? Or if you don't want to kill it maybe just point at the runner and give an out call so everyone knows what is going on.

Please, new umpires, ignore the preceding advice, as it is completely contradictory to the rulebook (interference on this runner is SPECIFICALLY ruled out by the book), and any advice leading to you stopping play while the ball is live is bad advice and a great way to get yourself into trouble.

[gsf23]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Please, new umpires, ignore the preceding advice, as it is completely contradictory to the rulebook (interference on this runner is SPECIFICALLY ruled out by the book), and any advice leading to you stopping play while the ball is live is bad advice and a great way to get yourself into trouble.

I didn't say you should, I was asking if you would or could. Wasn't giving any advice, just asking a question.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by gsf23

I didn't say you should, I was asking if you would or could. Wasn't giving any advice, just asking a question.

OK, the answer is no, you wouldn't and shouldn't. Don't get in the habit of kiling the ball after routine or even weird plays. Minimize the time that the ball is dead and your games will go faster and more smoothly.

[ref49873]

Thanks for all of your views.

What I did was let all the action finish. Ignored the "second" putout of the same runner at home, and left the other runners on 1st and 2nd.