Interference

[bluehair]

1. If R1 does not slide nor move out of the way on a DB and unintentionally causes F4 to miss the DP, R1 is still guilty of interference and you get the DP.

2. I assume that with R1 and R2, a grounder to F5, F5 steps on 3B and goes to 2B for a force out DP, if R2 does not slide or give it up and unintentionally gets in the way of the throw, he is also guilty of interference and you get the DP.

3. Bases loaded, crappy bunt sits in front of home. F2 picks it up steps on home for out, and then goes to 3B for a DP. If R3 does not slide or give it up and unintentionally gets in the way of the throw, he is also guilty of interference and you get the DP.

If these above are true (please let me know if you disagree), then why is BR not guilty of interference on this play and no DP given:

4. R3 only less than 2 out. Grounder in the infield is thrown to F3 and BR is out. F3 turns and tries to throw home to get DP on R3 trying to score, but is prevented from doing so because BR unintentionally gets in the way of the throw home.

Why do we not get a DP on this play?

editted: because there is no such thing as a double BLAY in baseball

[UmpJM]

bluehair,

WTF's a "DB"?

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess you are referring to a "double play", yes?

I'm also going to go a little further out on that limb and assume that you are referring to leagues that play under a code that includes a "Force Play Slide Rule" (e.g. FED, NCAA, Amer. Legion), yes?

If I have inferred correctly, the answer to your question is: because it's not a force play.

JM

[bluehair]

Dyslexia...I meant DP. I'll go edit to make it make more sense...Sorry

[DG]

Originally Posted by bluehair

1. If R1 does not slide nor move out of the way on a DP and unintentionally causes F4 to miss the DP, R1 is still guilty of interference and you get the DP.

2. I assume that with R1 and R2, a grounder to F5, F5 steps on 3B and goes to 2B for a force out DP, if R2 does not slide or give it up and unintentionally gets in the way of the throw, he is also guilty of interference and you get the DP.

3. Bases loaded, crappy bunt sits in front of home. F2 picks it up steps on home for out, and then goes to 3B for a DP. If R3 does not slide or give it up and unintentionally gets in the way of the throw, he is also guilty of interference and you get the DP.

If these above are true (please let me know if you disagree), then why is BR not guilty of interference on this play and no DP given:

4. R3 only less than 2 out. Grounder in the infield is thrown to F3 and BR is out. F3 turns and tries to throw home to get DP on R3 trying to score, but is prevented from doing so because BR unintentionally gets in the way of the throw home.

Why do we not get a DP on this play?

editted: because there is no such thing as a double BLAY in baseball

1. Yes.
2. Depends on where the throw hit him. If it was close to 3B then interference, if it was far (halfway or more) from 3b then not.
3. Hard to envision an out on R2 in this case.
4. BR is allowed to run to 1B.

[bluehair]

All runners are allowed to run to their next base...but with restrictions.

It was not lost on me that the three formers plays were force plays and the later was not. But is it that simple? Maybe including FPSR sitchs clouded the question.

Fed rule 8-4-1h does not specify a force out DP. While the penalty specifies that you get a DP out on FPSR sitch, is this still not interference, penalized by at least returning R3 to 3B (no score)?

Is this interference ? If not, why does 8-4-1h not apply ?

[UmpJM]

bluehair,

Because of 8-4-2g.

That is, 8-4-2g is the basis for the principle that a runner (who is not forced), whether retired or not, is only liable to an interference call on a thrown ball if his act is deemed intentional by the umpire.

JM

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by bluehair

3. Bases loaded, crappy bunt sits in front of home. F2 picks it up steps on home for out, and then goes to 3B for a DP. If R3 does not slide or give it up and unintentionally gets in the way of the throw, he is also guilty of interference and you get the DP.

Would your call be different if this happened at 2nd or 3rd?

Home is not treated any different than 2nd or 3rd in regards to the FPSR. Double play unless R3 was too far from home as others have said (umpire judgement).

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by PWL

With your way of thinking, all F3 has to do is plunk the BR with the baseball to send R3 back to base and negate a score. Don't you think interference should actually have occurred to make a call. What are you trying to do? Declare open season on the BR on a play such as this.

"Coach, I called the interference because the F3 was smart enough and had good enough aim to hit the batter running to first afer he was out."

Originally Posted by bluehair

...F3 turns and tries to throw home to get DP on R3 trying to score, but is prevented from doing so because BR unintentionally gets in the way of the throw home.

BR actually prevents F3 from making the play. You're trying to change the sitch into something else. You should know the difference between something that the offense initiates versus something the defense does. If you can't, well...there's always golf.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

bluehair,

Because of 8-4-2g.

That is, 8-4-2g is the basis for the principle that a runner (who is not forced), whether retired or not, is only liable to an interference call on a thrown ball if his act is deemed intentional by the umpire.

JM

This may be the reason that I was looking for. My gut was saying that this was nothing, but the more I read the rules, the more I doubted. But indulge me one more what if:

What if the reason that F3 could not make the throw was because BR was running so far inside of fair territory (not inside the runner's lane). Wouldn't his disregard for the running lane rule be evidence of intent?

[kylejt]

The running lane would play no part in this situation. It's only for balls being fielded at first base.

[UmpJM]

bluehair,

Actually, no.

The running lane proscriptions only apply to plays being attempted at 1B.

I applaud the fact that you are actually reading the rules. As you have discovered, there are a number of ambiguities (not to mention occasional contradictions) in the text of the rules.

If this stuff interests you, I would encourage you to obtain a copy of the BRD, which is probably the best source of authoritative interpretations to clarify these ambiguities and contradictions for FED rules.

http://shop.officiating.com/x/product/brd2006

I might add that I, personally, am waiting for the 2007 edition before ordering another copy. (I'm fairly certain that I am not the only one.) But I already have one.

JM

[bluehair]

JM,
I knew that argument was weak, but...

This is my first year working Fed rules. The intricacy is in that intent is not required for a FPSR, but it is if it is not a force.

Thanks for your patience.