Rule 6.05 (k)

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Your middle initial wouldn't be "W" by any chance, would it?

[rbmartin]

Let's assume there is no intervening play at home. Do I send the runner who advanced to 3rd back to 2nd or not?

[UmpJM]

rbmartin,

Absent an intervening play, all runners return to their TOP base.

JM

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Your middle initial wouldn't be "W" by any chance, would it?

No, for if it were he would have simply found one of my posts and found fault with it, or goaded me into a reaction. Paul L's post was far too reasonable and well thought-out.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Let's assume there is no intervening play at home. Do I send the runner who advanced to 3rd back to 2nd or not?

Yes. R2 goes back to 2B as coach JM stated.

[Paul L]

Ah, there it is, in the rule 2 definition of interference:

"(a) Offensive interference is . . .. If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules.
Rule 2.00 (Interference) Comment: In the event the batter-runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch." (Emphasis added.)

So the default rule is runners return to TOI base, except if BR has not reached first, then it's TOP base, except if a runner scores on an intervening play, then the run counts per MLBUM.

So in my example play, the run and the force out count (yes?), BR is out on running-lane interference, but R1 returns to first no matter where he was at TOI.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Your middle initial wouldn't be "W" by any chance, would it?

Certainly not! You are aware of the penalties for libel, are you not?

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

. . . Just once, can't the powers that be come together and fix the 235+ errors in OBR once and for all? I know I'm dreaming, but that's what I would love to see--a completely new rule book.

Sounds like a good Wikipedia project. Start with OBR and make the proper additions and clarifications, with citations to the alphabet soup manuals. Then in a few years, lobby MLB to adopt it.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Sounds like a good Wikipedia project. Start with OBR and make the proper additions and clarifications, with citations to the alphabet soup manuals. Then in a few years, lobby MLB to adopt it.

From what I've seen from students who utilized Wikipedia as part of their research, this would most likely result in adding to the errors and inconsistencies rather than reducing them.

[johnnyg08]

I would think that if MLB thought it would be a good use of resources to do it, they'd do it...until then, it's supplemental materials and hopefully more access to the MLBUM which is now becoming more available.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I would think that if MLB thought it would be a good use of resources to do it, they'd do it.

MLB has attempted to get this underway a number of times in the past fifteen years only to back off when they couldn't get complete agreement on how to startt from all the parties that would need to agree on the finished product.

Union contracts, committees, and coprorate bylaws can be a nuisance.

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

rbmartin,

Absent an intervening play, all runners return to their TOP base.

JM

Thanks. That's what I thought but I wanted a 2nd opinion.