It was not my intent to call you a liar. "Put a lie to that statement" means that you made the statement and then proved it wrong. It's a turn of phrase and does not mean the person saying it is calling you a liar.

I wouldn't say I had a beef at all. You're right in this part.

My bad for trying to simplify for you... although I did say, "generally" and that it was not a "perfect" way to think of it. A pitch is a pitch. A pitch is not a play. A play has a specific definition in the context of what we're talking about. You said you understood that and then proved you didn't, so I was trying to help you. You don't want help, I'm cool with that.

"A play or attempted play shall be interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or an attempted play."

NOW you (might) have an understanding of what a play is.

Just to be clear, you are referring to the OP, where the BR has not reached 1B and the intervening play (added to the OP sit) ruling in the MLBUM allows the run to score even though the OBR 2(a) comment would require a return at TOP as opposed to TOI.
I think it is important to understand that the MLBUM ruling is specific to a runner scoring and a running lane INT.
As it is , every double play has an intervening play but we return the runners TOP because of the 2(a) comment if we have a thrown ball INT.

IF there was a tag attempt or the like, that would be an intervening play. Otherwise the runner returns. Just crossing the plate is not an intervening play.

Rita

You really have to be careful with strict interpretations of the rule book. There are many places where the book conflicts with itself, and places where it uses more than one word to explain something.

For example, rule 4.07 uses the term "ejects". But rules 3.02 and 3.17 talk of "remove" and in 9.00 there are a number of references regarding "disqualify". Are they all the same thing? Different things? Who knows?

You find the same problem with the way the rulesmakers loosely used the word "play". It says in rule 7.10, for example, that an appeal is not to be interpreted as a "play or attempted play". Yet in the very same rule, it says, "Appeal plays may require an umpire..." So if it's not a play, why call it one?

It would do the rule book some justice to provide the definition of play in 2.00 beyond what's in there now as the umpire's declaration to start or resume action...

Off topic, but does anyone besides me think Jim Joyce was too close to this play? The OP photo reminded me that thought crossed my mind when I saw the game...

JJ

There is always a tag attempt or the like on any double play. I believe the intervening play ruling only applies to the running lane interference example.

OBR Rule 2: Interference - Comment A refers to a squeeze play, wherein R3 attempts to score, the defense makes a play on R3, R3 is safe and then the defense attempts to retire the BR at 1st base and THEN you have 3 foot lane interference.

Had the initial throw gone to 1st base to retire BR and R3 had crossed home plate at the time of the interference, R3 would be returned to 3rd base.

With the exception explained in comment A, MLB does not allow runners to advance when the BR is called out for interference. Some may recall A-Rod slapping the ball out of Arroyo's glove in game 6 of the ALCS between the Yankees and Redsox in 2004. All six umpires got together to change the call (2013 wasn't the first time this happened, despite the idiot commentators' statements). Jeter had already rounded 2nd base at the time of the interference. He ultimately scored when the ball ended up in the outfield and A-Rod made it to 2nd base. A-Rod was declared out and Jeter was returned to 1st base.

Randy Marsh had good positioning on the play to see a swipe tag. Unfortunately, another Red Sox cut between him and Arroyo and Marsh lost sight of the ball. I was surprised that Torre argued as long as he did. Torre, just like Girardi, was terrible at picking arguments and knowing when to end them.

Intervening play also applies in some codes to the rules regarding a ball thrown out of play.

I'm not aware of any "intervening play" application for a ball thrown out of play other than the second play by an infielder. Is that what you are referring to?

Back to the intervening play and INT:

I think its important to understand that the OBR intervening play only refers to RLI after a play at home. Unfortunately, the NCAA AR does not make that clear. "A.R. 2—If the batter-runner has not touched first base at the time of interference, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch. If there was an intervening play made on another runner, all runners shall return to the base last touched at the time of interference."

For example: Bases loaded, no outs, grounder to the infield and throw home (intervening play?) does not get the fast R3 who then sneaks a grab at F2 causing him to airmail the throw. R3 and the BR are called out for INT. Where do you place R1 and R2?

Or: R1, R3, no outs. Grounder to F4, throw to 2B doesn't get R1 (intervening play?) who then grabs F5's arm as he tries to throw to 1B. R1 and BR are out. Where do you place R3?

The FPSR makes it clear that runners are returned TOP for these violations.

Isn't that exactly the same thing? :) Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

I agree in FED and NCAA the FPSR does this. But my examples don't have a FPSR violation. So absent that, (humor me) where do you place the runners? I would use the 2.00(a) comment to return them TOP but would someone argue intervening play?

I think they do have a FPSR violation. If they don't then return TOI.

So, in OBR only, in the R1, R3 scenario, you would score the run if R3 scored before the INT because of the intervening play ruling?