Interference

[MD Longhorn]

This play came from the softball board and results in an unexpected outcome. Don't have my books here, and I suspect that baseball (both main codes) have a different ruling. Can you answer, and then post the relevant rule from OBR or FED?

Runners on 2nd and 3rd, no outs.

High pop up to shortstop. Runner from third scores, crossing the plate before the runner from 2nd intentionally interferes with the shortstop's ability to catch the ball.

What do you have?

[bob jenkins]

Deleted because I misread the play.

[stratref]

Ok, remember we are starting with ZERO outs.
I have R2 out for interference, I have BR out for the same interference, as I can award any outs or bases so as to nullify the interference.
Ball is dead at the time of interference. Return R3 to 3rd. 2 outs.

I see how there could be debate on where to place R3, or if even to place him on 3rd or call him out on appeal.

That is my best guess without opening the book (sorry I have a game to go to.)

Jasper

[DG]

How do we figure BR out on high pop to ss, the int is not breaking up a DP involving BR, it is involving R3, who has scored before the INT. If SS makes the catch he has easy out at 3b for not tagging and no play on BR.

I think I have 2 outs BR on 1b, R2 out on INT, R3 out because he would have been absent INT.

[justanotherblue]

I got two out on this one....R2 for his interference and I'm getting the BR on the interference also. I'm also returning R3 to 3b.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by DG

How do we figure BR out on high pop to ss, the int is not breaking up a DP involving BR, it is involving R3, who has scored before the INT..

There's no loophole at all and no runs can score.

The rule just says if a runner interfers with intent to break up a DP - it doesn't say how the DP would/could have been achieved. This particular one would have been the catch of the popup plus the appeal at third.

If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

So you call R2 out and the BR out and return the other runners to their TOP base. No fuss. No muss. Just what the rule says.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

There's no loophole at all and no runs can score.

The rule just says if a runner interfers with intent to break up a DP - it doesn't say how the DP would/could have been achieved. This particular one would have been the catch of the popup plus the appeal at third.

If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner.

So you call R2 out and the BR out and return the other runners to their TOP base. No fuss. No muss. Just what the rule says.

My mistake for misreading the play. I agree with Rich. Heck, I might even get three outs for "intentionally breaking up a triple play."

For FED, though, runners generally return TOI. But, 8-4-2g includes "If ... a runner ... interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved)." So, here R2 and R3 are out, and BR gets first -- again, unless you are extending this to be a triple play.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DG

How do we figure BR out on high pop to ss, the int is not breaking up a DP involving BR, it is involving R3, who has scored before the INT. If SS makes the catch he has easy out at 3b for not tagging and no play on BR.

I think I have 2 outs BR on 1b, R2 out on INT, R3 out because he would have been absent INT.

That may be common sense, but your ruling is not supported by rule.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by stratref

Ok, remember we are starting with ZERO outs.
I have R2 out for interference, I have BR out for the same interference, as I can award any outs or bases so as to nullify the interference.
Ball is dead at the time of interference. Return R3 to 3rd. 2 outs.

I see how there could be debate on where to place R3, or if even to place him on 3rd or call him out on appeal.

That is my best guess without opening the book (sorry I have a game to go to.)

Jasper

What appeal do you have available to you in this case? There was no "caught ball" to have left earlier than.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

My mistake for misreading the play. I agree with Rich. Heck, I might even get three outs for "intentionally breaking up a triple play."

That's rule 9-c, right?

[celebur]

Originally Posted by DG

How do we figure BR out on high pop to ss, the int is not breaking up a DP involving BR, it is involving R3, who has scored before the INT. If SS makes the catch he has easy out at 3b for not tagging and no play on BR.

Yeah, he'd have no play on BR because BR would have been out on the catch.

[DG]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

that may be common sense, but your ruling is not supported by rule.

Ok, although the intent of the rule is likely involving a more natural DP involving BR as the 2nd out, and in this case entirely different, thus the thought.