Make the call -

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Let's assume BR was going in the general direction of 1B. Let's also assume that his choice of path makes it obvious that he intended to run into F2.

I really have a hard time picturing this. He's headed toward first and you consider the choice of path as intent to interfere? I'm wondering if you were unaware of the OBR comment and are now in yeahbut mode.

[Durham]

I'll go look it up for ya

[Durham]

NCAA rule 7-11 page 87.

f. The batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s
fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any
other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;
PENALTY for f.—The runner(s) return to the base occupied at the time
of interference.
Exceptions—
(1) If the runner is advancing to home plate and there are fewer than two
outs, the runner, instead of the batter, is out.
(2) The batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out,
or if the runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.
(3) If the batter also should strike out on the play, it is a double play.
(4) If a batter/runner and a catcher fielding the ball make contact, no call
shall be made unless either player attempts to alter the play.

Look at exception (1)

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by Durham

NCAA rule 7-11 page 87.

f. The batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s
fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any
other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;
PENALTY for f.—The runner(s) return to the base occupied at the time
of interference.
Exceptions—
(1) If the runner is advancing to home plate and there are fewer than two
outs, the runner, instead of the batter, is out.
(2) The batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out,
or if the runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.
(3) If the batter also should strike out on the play, it is a double play.
(4) If a batter/runner and a catcher fielding the ball make contact, no call
shall be made unless either player attempts to alter the play.

Look at exception (1)

Look at exception 4 - in my scenario, one of the players is attempting to alter the play. So who's out in #4?

Look at that would ya, it's not such a TWP afterall. They wrote it in a rule book!!

Let's go with your answer for now (still clarifying the whole thing) - if R3 is advancing, you say he's out, put the batter back in the box. Does the pitch count?

No for a "yeah-but" - these are batter's interference, and the batter is actually now a runner. Do the BI rules still apply?

[Durham]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Look at exception 4 - in my scenario, one of the players is attempting to alter the play. So who's out in #4?

Look at that would ya, it's not such a TWP afterall. They wrote it in a rule book!!

Let's go with your answer for now (still clarifying the whole thing) - if R3 is advancing, you say he's out, put the batter back in the box. Does the pitch count?

No for a "yeah-but" - these are batter's interference, and the batter is actually now a runner. Do the BI rules still apply?

Exception (4) says batter/runner

And Rule 7-11 states

When Batter or Batter-Runner Is Out

So I would say yes.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I really have a hard time picturing this. He's headed toward first and you consider the choice of path as intent to interfere? I'm wondering if you were unaware of the OBR comment and are now in yeahbut mode.

No, Rich, I'm not in Yeah-but mode. I was trying to come up with something as intentional that would be visible on the internet. Might have been a bad choice. Picture something that you can as intentional and use that. I didn't intend (sorry) to debate intent. You can debate that all night, and all day tomorrow and...

Do you have an answer to the situation or not? I've been around internet umpring long enough to avoid the yeah but...plus we have enough of that in the caught 3K foul bunt attempt thread.

If it makes you sleep better tonight, my initial response when I was asked this question was that we have nothing, BR has a right to run, F2 has a right to field the ball. So yeah, I know the stinking rule. Then the original question was changed to "ok BR intentionally interfers..." and I have answered it. I am posing the question here because there are some that are helpful. You are usually one of those. I'm not sure what stuck in your craw this time.

My problem is that the person asking, had an answer, much as I do. However, when I answered with the same response that bob has given me (thank you, bob) he said that was wrong. I have yet to be able to find proof to defend his answer. Again, so I post here to see if anyone gives me that answer. I'll enlighten everyone to that response later. For now, I'm curious as to what Rich and a few others have to say about the sitch - other than wth is intent.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

No, Rich, I'm not in Yeah-but mode. I was trying to come up with something as intentional that would be visible on the internet. Might have been a bad choice. Picture something that you can as intentional and use that. I didn't intend (sorry) to debate intent. You can debate that all night, and all day tomorrow and...

Do you have an answer to the situation or not? I've been around internet umpring long enough to avoid the yeah but...plus we have enough of that in the caught 3K foul bunt attempt thread.

If it makes you sleep better tonight, my initial response when I was asked this question was that we have nothing, BR has a right to run, F2 has a right to field the ball. So yeah, I know the stinking rule. Then the original question was changed to "ok BR intentionally interfers..." and I have answered it. I am posing the question here because there are some that are helpful. You are usually one of those. I'm not sure what stuck in your craw this time.

My problem is that the person asking, had an answer, much as I do. However, when I answered with the same response that bob has given me (thank you, bob) he said that was wrong. I have yet to be able to find proof to defend his answer. Again, so I post here to see if anyone gives me that answer. I'll enlighten everyone to that response later. For now, I'm curious as to what Rich and a few others have to say about the sitch - other than wth is intent.

Well, it would be interference and the B-R would be out. Other runners return. If judged a willful and deliberate attempt to prevent a DP the B-R and the runner closest to home would be out.

As described in the OP and the follow-up, has anyone ever seen a runner that stupid?

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Well, it would be interference and the B-R would be out. Other runners return. If judged a willful and deliberate attempt to prevent a DP the B-R and the runner closest to home would be out.

As described in the OP and the follow-up, has anyone ever seen a runner that stupid?

THAT'S more like Rich. I haven't found that runner yet, but I bet he's out there!

Thank you, folks. You have reenforced my thoughts on the play. My apologies for getting a little bent.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I really have a hard time picturing this. He's headed toward first and you consider the choice of path as intent to interfere? I'm wondering if you were unaware of the OBR comment and are now in yeahbut mode.

OK sorry - I didn't clarify this for you in my last reply. RH batter, ball is down the 1BL, F2 is still in foul territory headed that way and BR "swerves" over to where F2 is and runs into him rather than staying on the line, or even on the fair side as most RH batters would leaving the batter's box.

That's just ONE way "his path" could become intent...

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

OK sorry - I didn't clarify this for you in my last reply. RH batter, ball is down the 1BL, F2 is still in foul territory headed that way and BR "swerves" over to where F2 is and runs into him rather than staying on the line, or even on the fair side as most RH batters would leaving the batter's box.

That's just ONE way "his path" could become intent...

B/R is out, return the runners (including an advancing R3).

[johnnyg08]

Do you think that rule implies that even if the bunt attempt is a fair ball?

So you'd call R3 out, then bring the batter back for a do over? Or would you call out R3 and place B/R at first base? Or neither of those?

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

call out R3 and place B/R at first base?

This is the answer he gave me yesterday. I was having a hard time grasping that.

I just found out he discussed it with others and the answers here seem to be right.

"you get both R3 and B/R out" is his latest w/o supporting rule sitations via text message.

[UmpTTS43]

Once the ball is batted, the batter now becomes a batter-runner. Batter INT no longer applies. If the BR intentionally interfers with F2 fielding the ball, BR is out, runners return. If you judge that the BR interfered in order to prevent a double play, then the BR is out along with the runner closest to home.

It's really not that difficult.