Interference - placement of other runner

[David Emerling]

Situation: R2 & R3. A botched squeeze play attempt results in R3 being trapped in a rundown. R3 purposely veers so that a thrown ball strikes him on the shoulder. The ball dribbles away allowing him to scamper home without a play. The umpire calls him for interference. At the time the ball struck him on the shoulder, R2 had already advanced and was standing on 3rd.

Question: Is R2 allowed to remain on 3rd or does he have to go back to 2nd?

[bob jenkins]

Must go back to second in OBR; can remain at third in FED

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Must go back to second in OBR; can remain at third in FED

I meant to clarify that this is OBR.

Thanks Bob, that's what I recall - but I wasn't sure.

What if it was the same play, only with runners at 1st and 3rd and, at the time of the interference, R1 had advanced and was standing on 2nd? Can he remain there?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I meant to clarify that this is OBR.

Thanks Bob, that's what I recall - but I wasn't sure.

What if it was the same play, only with runners at 1st and 3rd and, at the time of the interference, R1 had advanced and was standing on 2nd? Can he remain there?

Yes.

And, if it was bases loaded and both R1 and R2 had advanced, they'd both have to go back.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes.

And, if it was bases loaded and both R1 and R2 had advanced, they'd both have to go back.

Because no runner may advance on the call of interference.

[UmpJM]

David,

As Bob J. and Ozzy have pointed out, in your sitch the R2 is returned to 2B under OBR rules. This is spelled out in the 7.08(b) Comment:

....If, in a run-down between third base and home plate, the succeeding runner has advanced and is standing on third base when the runner in a run-down is called out for offensive interference, the umpire shall send the runner standing on third base back to second base. This same principle applies if there is a run-down between second and third base and succeeding runner has reached second (the reasoning is that no runner shall advance on an interference play and a runner is considered to occupy a base until he legally has reached the next succeeding base).

So, in addition to Ozzy's cite of the "...no runner may advance..." principle, there is also the principle of "legal occupation of a base".

For some unknown reason, FED introduced the following situation contradicting the OBR principles in their 2010 website interps:

SITUATION 13: R1 is on third and R2 is on second with no outs. Both runners attempt a double steal. As R1 gets into a rundown between home and third, R2 advances and stays on third base. With R2 on third base, R1 commits interference during the rundown. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R1 is declared out for the interference. R2 will be kept at third base since he had legally reached third at the time of the interference. (8-2-9, 8-2-8).

By my read, this interp also contradicts what FED 8-2-9 & 8-2-8 say regarding legal occupation of a base under FED rules. But I'm guessing this interp is why Bob pointed out the FED difference on your sitch.

JM

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Because no runner may advance on the call of interference.

Well, no, not exactly. Because some runners can advance on the call of interference.

Suppose the OP was R1, R3. Double steal and R3 gets caught in a rundown. R1 advances to and touches third, when R3 is called for interference.

Here, R1 is returned to second. (OBR)