Question on dropped thrid strike

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by greymule

Unless things have changed since the 2006 BRD, a retired runner can intentionally decoy the defense in Fed, but not in OBR or NCAA.

One play as example:

R1. B1 grounds to F6. R1 is forced out at 2B, but the relay throw is not in time at 1B. Next, retired R1 gets into a rundown between 2B and 3B and is tagged "out" again as B1 takes 2B. Ruling: In FED, B1 remains at 2B. In NCAA and OBR, B1 is out for R1's INT.

Section 274 of the 2006 BRD also notes, "NCAA: A retired runner my not continue to advance if such action 'hinders or impedes' the defense."

What does Carl use as his source for the NCAA and OBR rulings on this play (and the other you cited)?

[greymule]

That is not a rule.

See the BRD for official interpretations for both NCAA and OBR.

See also the case plays in which INT is not called when a retired runner continues to run. None of these case plays involve deliberate decoying.

[greymule]

What does Carl use as his source for the NCAA and OBR rulings on this play (and the other you cited)?

For the "FED only" play in which the retired BR streaks to 2B and draws a wild throw, FED 8.3.3f: "A runner or BR is not guilty of INT if he continues to advance, even when he knows he is out, even if that advance allows other runners to make additional bases." Note: Carl continues, "B1 is congratulated for [acting as] a legal decoy. . . ." He also notes, "You'll have to eject somebody."

Immediately following this "FED only" example, Carl cites the NCAA rules (5-3 Pen 2 and 5-3 AR 1) and "OFF INTERP" Thurston, which emphasizes intentional. For OBR, Carl says, "Same as NCAA" and cites the definition and the familiar rule, with "OFF INTERP" Fitzpatrick as well as "email to cc."

The rundown play and two others follow, with distinctions—based on the retired runner's intent—made between FED and NCAA/OBR.

If you have a 2006 BRD, it's 274, pp. 167-168.

[dash_riprock]

NCAA and OBR rules are the same: It is interference if a runner who has been put out "hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner..." Both codes also state that continuing to run the bases, by itself, is not INT.

Therefore, in order for INT to occur, we need two things:

1) The retired runner must do something to interfere other than continue to run the bases.

2) The defense must be attempting a play on another runner (i.e., not the retired runner), and the retired runner must hinder or impede that play.

There is nothing in the rule about intent, although intentional interference is always against the rules.

I don't have a BRD, and I have thus far been unable to find an NCAA interp. on this issue. It is not addressed in either J/R or MLBUM, and maybe that's because they don't believe there is a need for an interpretation or clarification. The rule is pretty clear to me.

[greymule]

Nothing in the PBUC or Evans, either. The only authoritative source that delves into this is the BRD, which is pretty clear that when a retired runner intentionally decoys the defense into playing on him and (1) another runner advances, or (2) the defense gives up a play on another runner, the retired runner has committed INT in OBR and NCAA but not in Fed.

In the rundown play, the BRD does recommend that "if B1 remains at 1B during the 'rundown,' do not assess a penalty.

The BRD also emphasizes intent on the part of the runner and backs that up with official interpretations.

The BRD is not perfect. Some MLB umpire might disagree with Fitzpatrick. It's happened before. But I'm going with the BRD interpretation until I'm persuaded otherwise.

It's clear to me that the disagreement lies in the interpretation of the "by that act alone." I take it to mean simply continuing in the basepaths, as opposed to committing intentional acts designed to confuse the defense. To me, intentionally decoying the defense is something other than "continuing to advance."

So we're at a dead end unless somebody can supply an official case play or ruling.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by greymule

So we're at a dead end unless somebody can supply an official case play or ruling.

Yep. Good discussion though. Thanks for keeping it cordial. More whiskey for your horses!

[Steelers]

Hey, guys sorry for opening up this can of worms on one of the original posts. Hopefully none of these situations will ever come up. I have read 7.09(e) many times but never rally thought to much about the rule. I stand corrected about a runner continuing to run the basepaths after being called out. I have never seen any runner continue before and hope I never do

[jicecone]

I read BRD 2009 last night and it pretty much states what greymule has said. I will look closer tonight.

[greymule]

Thanks for keeping it cordial.

You, too! Much appreciated.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Steelers

Hopefully none of these situations will ever come up.

Thanks for the jinx.

[johnnyg08]

I was reading 7.09 last night for something else and I did see a comment in there about the type of situation you're describing...on paper, it does seem pretty cut and dry. Too bad paper and field are two different things sometimes

[cviverito]

Originally Posted by greymule

I think that qualifies as INT on the BR, even though you could argue that the defense should know that he was already out.

So...if it qualifies as interference...how do you penalize it? Is it an immediately dead ball or delayed dead? Since the BR is already out, do you call R1 out for the interference? Are you scoring R2 & R3 or are you making them return to the base occupied at the TOI (which in this case appears to be HP)?