Does the run score?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The following was discussed at our LOA's umpires' meeting last night.

NFHS Rules (but would like to know the answer for NCAA and MLB too):

Play: R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B; 0 outs; 2 strikes on the Batter/B3. R1 breaks for HP and R2 breaks for 2B as F1 delivers the Pitch to B3. B3 swings and misses for Strike 3 and F2 catches the pitch cleanly for Out #1. B3's swing causes him to step over HP. F2 catches the pitch cleanly and throws to 2B. The PU signals a Delayed DB, verbalizes the Interference by B3. F2's throw to F6 at 2B is in time for F6 to tag R2 for the Out #2 while R1 scores from 3B.

The Question being discussed at our meeting is: Does R1 score, or must he return to 3B?

The NFHS Baseball Rules Delayed Dead Ball Table gives two possible answers:

Activity 1. Interference by batter when attempted put out is on runner
other than at home (R5-S1-A2a). Awards or Penalties 1. With two out, batter is out. Otherwise, if attempt on runner is unsuccessful, ball is dead, batter is out and runners return. If third strike, batter is out and umpire can call a second out (R7-S3-A5; R8-S2-A6; R8-S4-A2g);

or

Activity 2. Interference by batter when runner is advancing to home plate (other than hitting a throw from the pitcher, not in contact with pitcher’s plate) (R5-S1-A2a). Awards or Penalties 2. Runner is out unless two are out, then batter is out. If runner is put out, ball remains alive (R7-S3-A5; R8-S4-A2l).

Everybody agreed that the Defense's successful attempt to put R2 out negates B3's Interference but does R1's run count or is he returned to 3B?

MTD, Jr., and I are of the opinion that R1's run counts, because the Interference was negated and the Defense was successful in its attempt to put out R2. Others are of the opinion that R1 should be returned to 3B because the Offense should not benefit from B3's Interference.

What say you?

MTD, Sr.

[RadioBlue]

Interesting. However, I would contend that since the interference did not impede the defense and since they chose to play on R2 and were successful, all other action is legal and the run scores. I don't see how the offense is benefitting from the interference.

[RPatrino]

Absent the interference, would R1 have scored?

[bob jenkins]

If the first throw directly results in an out then the interference is ignored and the rest of the play stands. The run scores.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the first throw directly results in an out then the interference is ignored and the rest of the play stands. The run scores.

Then the defense would be better served by cutting off the throw to F6, or not tagging R2?

Of course, it's hard (if not impossible) to imagine that the defense would NOT play on R2 coming home. Then they get 2 outs & a runner at first base.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the first throw directly results in an out then the interference is ignored and the rest of the play stands. The run scores.

Agree with this in all codes.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by CT1

Then the defense would be better served by cutting off the throw to F6, or not tagging R2?

Of course they would.

[Rich]

I stopped reading at R1 on 3B. If you're going to use that stupid NFHS runner notation, I will just claim tl;dr and ignore the rest.

[kylejt]

Yow. See I'm envisioning the BR's action is to intentionally screen out the catcher's view of the runner coming in from third. I mean, why on Earth would F2 not just wait for THAT tag, as opposed to throwing down?

BR out on the K, Runner from third out on the INT, runner from first goes back because of the INT.

Thank you, and good night.

[UmpJM]

kyle,

That would be "making up a rule".

By rule, if the F2 chooses to play on the runner going into 2B AND his initial throw retires the runner, the BI is disregarded - treated as if it hadn't happened.

Just because you think the BR was "intentionally screening" the F2 from seeing the runner advancing from 3B doesn't change the rule or give you the authority to make up your own rule to suit your personal sense of fairness.

JM

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by CT1

Then the defense would be better served by cutting off the throw to F6, or not tagging R2?

Of course, it's hard (if not impossible) to imagine that the defense would NOT play on R2 coming home. Then they get 2 outs & a runner at first base.

MTD, Jr., was a catcher (as well as a first baseman) in H.S., and he said that he had a second reason for allowing R1's run to stand: With a runner on 3B why the heck is F2 trying to throw out R1 at 2B. Just not good defense. LOL

MTD, Sr.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

if the first throw directly results in an out then the interference is ignored and the rest of the play stands. The run scores.

+1

[Art N]

Originally Posted by richmsn

i stopped reading at r1 on 3b. If you're going to use that stupid nfhs runner notation, i will just claim tl;dr and ignore the rest. :d

+1

[UmpTTS43]

7.09e Runner that is initially played on is out regardless and other runners return to base at TOI. This is an immediate dead ball.

The philosophy of disregarding INT if an out is recorded by F2's initial throw is only when the INT is committed by the batter, not on a retired batter.

FWIW, Wendlestadt had the same question on his site and his ruling was that this is still INT regardless if the runner on first was put out or not. Runner on third is returned. This is in line with 7.09e

This ruling applies to OBR and NCAA. I would think FED would be the same but I don't know for sure.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I stopped reading at R1 on 3B. If you're going to use that stupid NFHS runner notation, I will just claim tl;dr and ignore the rest.

Rich:

The first two sentences of my OP were and I quote: "The following was discussed at our LOA's umpires' meeting last night.

NFHS Rules (but would like to know the answer for NCAA and MLB too):"

Notice the words highlighted in red. Therefore, it was well within my perrogative to use NFHS nomenclature. Either you want to make a learned contribution (and I knew you are very capable at making a learned contribution) to this thread, or don't make one at all.

MTD, Sr.