Teach Tee Something, #3:

[TussAgee11]

7.09e comment means his mere presence of advancing is not to be considered interference. It says it right there... "shall not by that act alone be considered [interfering]".

Yes, his advancement is not interfering. But by hindering or impeding F2s play on another runner after he has just put out is interference, and 7.09e gives us our penalty, "such runner [that the play was going to be made on] shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate."

It is indeed the same rule that is used on the "batter you're out on strikes, runner, you're out on the interference" on the typical steal play strike 3.

[bossman72]

The batter is not entitled to run. Say he did this on a dropped strike 2 thinking it was strike 3 and the same play happened.

If R2 was stealing, I would call him out on interference by the batter.

Had this been strike 3 with R2 only (BR entitled to run) then this would be nothing.


In an NCAA game, the ball is dead and all runners return by rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bossman72

In an NCAA game, the ball is dead and all runners return by rule.

Reference, please.

I generally agree with those who have this as interference, R2 out, return R1.

I took the question from the NASO yearly quiz. The question made me think for a bit. I'm not sure I would have correctly ruled on the field, at least not initially.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Reference, please.

I generally agree with those who have this as interference, R2 out, return R1.

I took the question from the NASO yearly quiz. The question made me think for a bit. I'm not sure I would have correctly ruled on the field, at least not initially.

7-11-h AR2 Exception

But after reading that, I just caught the end that says "unless runners are stealing on the pitch," so it's the same in all codes.