NFHS RLV You Make the Call

[bob jenkins]

For all the plays: The play at the plate stands, BR is out, other runners return to TOI.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

For all the plays: The play at the plate stands, BR is out, other runners return to TOI.

+1

Sit. 1: The runner from third is out on the force play at home; B4 is out for running lane interference. 8-4-1g is restricted only to the ball "being fielded or thrown to first base" (whatever "fielded to first base" would mean). I would leave runners at 2B and 3B on the play, unless my partner or I saw that the runners had NOT achieved their advance base at TOI.

In short: what Bob said.

Sit. 2: Runner is safe on the play at home; B4 is out for garden-variety running-lane interference.

Sit. 3: The play at the plate stands. If the umpire rules that B4 interfered by being out of the running lane, B4 is out, the ball is dead immediately, and other runners return to their TOI bases. If the umpires didn't kill it immediately upon the interference, they should have, and in any case it's dead anyway. Send the runners back.

In short: I don't see how reading more carefully would lead to a conclusion different from Bob's.

[UmpTTS43]

I can't recall if FED adopts the "intervening play" philosophy. I am thinking they do not. If that is the case, when it is determined that the BR interfered with the play at first, the ball is immediately dead, BR is out, and runners return to positions at TOP. If R1 (assuming R3) is out, that out would stand.

If they do accept the "intervening play" philosophy, again immediate dead ball at time of INT, BR out, and runners placed at time of INT.

[mbyron]

OBR 6.05k uses the expression "fielded to first base," which is probably the basis for the idea that an "intervening play" negates running-lane interference.

FED 8-4-1g uses the expression "fielded or thrown to first base," which suggests that an intervening play would not relieve the BR of his obligation to run in the running lane.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OBR 6.05k uses the expression "fielded to first base," which is probably the basis for the idea that an "intervening play" negates running-lane interference.

FED 8-4-1g uses the expression "fielded or thrown to first base," which suggests that an intervening play would not relieve the BR of his obligation to run in the running lane.

In OBR, although there is an "intervening play," that does not relieve the BR of his obligation to obey the running lane rules. If it is determined that the BR hindered F3's ability to receive the throw while being out of the lane, he is still subject to being called out for INT.

In FED, the same is true except that INT can be called if the BR interfered with the throw or the act of fielding the throw.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OBR 6.05k uses the expression "fielded to first base," which is probably the basis for the idea that an "intervening play" negates running-lane interference.

The "intervening play" does not negate running lane interference. It only means that runners return TOI instead of TOP.

In FED, runners always return TOI, with the exception of FPSR.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The "intervening play" does not negate running lane interference. It only means that runners return TOI instead of TOP.

Right. I knew that. Duh me.

[UmpTTS43]

So does FED use the intervening play philosophy, or all all runners returned if R3 is safe?