Interesting responses and opinions. But in thinking about this OP, I seem to recall that I (the umpire) am the sole judge of many aspects of the game. If I judge that a runner was in control of his body, then that is the end of it! It doesn't matter if the manager or the fans agree or not, I am the judge of the situation, not them. If I judge that a runner is in control of his body and is shoved off the base, then the runner is going to stay right there and I may get rid of the offender. If I judge that the runner was not in control of his body because a simple bump from a fielder reaching around the runner knocked him off the base, then "OUT" will be the call when tagged. Again, opinions from others do not matter nor will they be entertained by me. So now as far as the OP goes, I would have to be there to render a proper decision, but I think that I would be leaning to the OUT call for the runners lack of body control.

My thinking on the play was, and is, reasonably along the lines of Mr. Umpire. In my reading, and my mind's-eye, F6 didn't "shove" or take any other action designed to cause R2 to leave the base. All F6 did was catch the ball. It was one continuous-action play. It was just a trainwreck.

ymmv. shrug.

So my guess is that when the batter swings at a pitch and falls over the plate while the runner at first is stealing second and the catcher is blocked, that isn't interference.

I mean, I am just following the thinking here....................

No, you're not following the thinking. You're attempting to take guidlines appropiately applicable, at least according to one proschool, to one situation and apply them inappropriately to another situation in the vain hope of making some kind of point.

Not the point I am making at all. I agree that the play you describe in interference.

I hear ya...but thats not whats described in the post. It didnt say "shove" but it did say R2 was back to the bag, standing on the bag. That seems to indicate the runner had body control, and was on the base.
Then the throw took F6 into the play,,,,had to reach around the runner....off-balance..into the runner, taking them both off the bag. So, from what was described, yes, F6 did take "other" action. He just didnt receive the throw, apply a tag, and knock em both to the ground.
And to me its important, thats its noted that contact was made AFTER f6 recieved the throw. Hes got the ball, and instead of applying the tag, his off-balance actions take them off the bag.

It seems the actions of the play, and F6, with R2 in "control" of the base, are the reason R2 came off. And your going to reward the defense?
What caused R2 to come off? If R2 had control of the base, as the post seems to indicate, then its the actions of F6 that caused him to come off.

Ive ran this by a buddy here in SoCal. He does D1, the Big West Mtn West, and also has done MLB. And currently besides D1, does Independent Minor League stuff here in SoCal also, Golden Baseball League.
Showed him the post. And though he agreed its a HTBT, all evidence points to a safe.
Saying this in not a "normal" play we see. He said if this play happens as described, and an umpire calls this an out, he wont be doing that level for long.
Just another opinion...

Again, in your minds eye. Apparently some of us "see" the play ocurring differently. What's wrong with that?

If it ocurred as slowly as you describe, I would agree with your call. However, in my experience, these plays don't happen that way...they happen very quickly, at least at the levels I work.

So we see the play that we didn't see with different eyes due to our different backgrounds and experiences.

What I don't understand is how you can only imagine one way for this play to unfold.

I wholeheartedly concur with this. Without seeing the play in real time, all we can do is speculate as to what the correct call should have been.

Tim.

I agree with most of what you say on most things. And true each might see it different. But at higher levels, shouldnt there be consistency on this type of stuff? I mean, thats why the Big Dawgs make it to that level. Making the right calls on these types of plays. So, yes...usually these are close plays, not always bangers though. And if we are doing the same levels..college...then we should be close to the same page. But since we dont have a visual, we only have descriptive terms from the post. And the words used to describe the play, to me, lean towards this not being your ususal standard pickoff move.
On a pick, do we usually see both runner and fielder tumble off the bag, and then a tag? I cant remember If Ive seen a play like that.
So, since we have something out of the ordinary, what caused it to happen? Again, with no visual, we have just the post.
And on this play, I dont read it as close-close. When the post says..
"runner GETS BACK to 2nd base standing up" isnt that saying the runner is in full control of his body, and has the bag?

.." has to reach around the runner standing on second to catch the throw..." to me this reinforces that the runner was back to the bag...he says "standing on 2nd"...and the SS now is making the first step in causing them to come off the base. .."reach around the runner"..who is standing on the bag.

..."The shortstop, after catching the ball is off balance and leans on the runner"... It says SS off-balance. Doesnt that mean that the SS is the one not in control? Runner is back to the base, standing. And then LEANS on the runner. Here comes the SS, running to the play, with momentum. Still moving, gloves the throw, off balance, and leans into the runner. Put all that together. You have a stationary R2, and now the SS comes flying in, and off-balance leans into the runner. Doesnt that mean the total movement of the SS from start to finish, is what caused R2 to come off the base?

I realize this all takes place in just a matter of seconds. But its not your normal pickoff play.
What caused the runner to come off? The runner, or the fielder. Im just saying, from the descriptive terms used in the post, and the way I picture it playing out, it was the actions of the SS and his momentum on the play, that caused him to continue on through, with R2 in his path, and that carried them both off the base.
Just too much in the post. "runner gets back"...."standing on the base".."reach around the runner"..."reach around the runner STANDING on
2nd"...."after catching the ball is off balance and leans on the runner"

Doesnt all this support that the SS caused an in-control R2 to come off the base?
You say these plays dont normally happen that way. But rarely do they happen like this. Its usually just a spin and throw by F1, and a tag attempt. Not the F6 doing the Macarena into the runner.
Im going by the terms in the post...I dont see something in there that leads one to think that it was part action by the runner that caused him not to be "stable", and thus come off the base by a "normal" baseball play.
The post seems to indicate otherwise.

I figured there would be some who would disagree, Im just surprised at some of the people on here who would have a safe.
But I guess this thread has gone too long by now. You go with what you have, based on what you think "normally" happens on plays like these, and Ill go with the information given, be it in a post, or on the field, and judge em that way.

No. It tells me he did not slide and beat the tag.

Are you, perhaps, related to a certain large football coach from Waverly Ohio? You both seem to delight in having forceful contact with deceased equines.

At least be honest. You're going with how you interpret the information given, just as Bob Jenkins and I are. The difference is you refuse to see how any interpretation of what was written but yours could be correct.

Yeah your right...Ive ridden this steed as far as I can. Time for me to push this expired equine off the track, unless of course the shortstop pushed him off first :D