Rule 6.05 (k)
 

Having trouble finding this in rulebook:
When calling out a batter/runner via rule 6.05(k), what do you do with runners on other bases?

6.05(k) is not listed in the index of OBR as an example of interference per se. 6.05 (h), (j), (m) and (n) are the only official offensive interference references given for 6.05.

I believe that the play has no effect on the other runners, and only the batter is called out.

In the MLBUM, it says the following concerning interference, but doesn't address this situation specifically, so I don't believe it applies:

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 the Official Baseball Rules.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're right Steve. I was reading about an intervening play not straight up runner's lane INT. Runners return to TOP base if B/R does not reach 1B

rbmartin,

On a running lane interference call, the BR is out, and any other runners return to their TOP base - UNLESS, there was an "interving play" prior to the runnig lane interference, in which case other runners are returned to their TOI base.

JM

Obviously, as JM pointed out, a safe play at the plate followed by runners lane INT, run scores because of intervening play.

But would a play at another base qualify as intervening?

1) Intervening play on a R1 or R2
2) R3 touches home
3) Runner's lane interference

...or...

1) R3 touches home
2) Intervening play on another runner
3) Runner's lane interference

Run is good on situation 2 for sure, but situation 1? The wording JM provided would say yes, all runners get TOI once any intervening play takes place (otherwise we'd have to start forcing runners along in certain situations). I'm inclined to agree, but can't find a rule citation.

Rule 6.05(k) listed on MLB.com contains the phrase "in which case the ball is dead" while the rule listed at baseball-almanac.com does not.

This came up in a game I was a substitute umpire for this weekend but luckily no runners on. I just want to be prepared for next time just in case.

Could you give me the rule reference for this interp please?

mlbum p 52 Titled Interference w/ Intervening Play.

Rule: 6.05k and probably somewhere in Rule 7 would be my guess.

How could you have an intervening play at any base but home? If the throw to 1B comes from anywhere but the vicinity of home, you cannot have runner's lane interference.

w/ less than 2 outs, the run could possibly score though on an intervening play

MLBUM 6.2 yes, rule book...not in there. I wanted the rule from the book that said all this. This shows that it's another omission in the OBR book.

That's correct. It's an interp, not a rule.

That is what I was driving at. I'm a big proponent of a total rewrite of OBR for this very reason. I need to build a room addition to house the volumes of interpretation manuals needed to umpire a friggin baseball game nowadays.

And I'm sure there are many umpires who have no access to these extra books, due to financial restraints. Or the 99% of managers and coaches who have never even heard of Jim Evans or MLBUM or PBUC or NAPBL or J/R or any other alphabet soup manuals where interps come from. 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. Many coaches don't like to hear "Coach, it's an official interpretation." If it's not in the book specifically addressed, then they don't want to hear about it.

Although rare, it is possible to have runners-lane interference on a throw other than from the home plate area. Nothing in the rule limits it to throws from home plate.

E.g.: bases loaded, no outs. BR bunts a sharp one-hopper to pitcher, who gloves it and fires to third for the force out. F5 then fires the ball across to first. The path of the throw will intercept the first base line about four feet down the line towards home. F3 leans toward home, sticks his glove out in fair territory, just inside the line, and would have been able to catch the ball with ordinary effort (IOW, a quality throw) in time to put out BR, except that BR is also running inside the line (his left foot entirely to the left of the line). BR runs into F3's glove, the ball hits BR in the back and falls to the ground. At some point before the interference, either before the force at third (a la suicide squeeze) or afterwards, R3 touches home.

Taking JM's reported interpretation as gospel, I have R2 out on the force, BR out on a running-lane interference, R3 scoring a run, and R1 wherever he was when the ball hit BR (I hope some ump was watching).

On the other hand, if there was no play at third and F1's initial play was the same throw to F3, then BR is out and runners all return to TOP base. Are we sure that MLBUM or some other authority says this would be a TOP, not a TOI?

Here is the citation from From MLBUM:

Play: Play at the plate on runner attempting to score; runner is called safe. A following play is made on the batter-runner, who is called out for interference outside the three-foot lane.

Ruling: With less than two out, the run scores and the batter-runner is out. With two out, the run does not count. The reasoning is that an intervening play occurred before the interference. Runners would return to the base last legally touched at the time of interference. However, w/ two out, the runner reached home on a play in which the batter-runner was out before reaching first base. (Note this clarification to the Casebook Comment of Official Baseball Rule 2.00 (Interference) (a).)

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

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

rbmartin,

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

JM

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.

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

Scoring the run is an exception to an exception
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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