Bunt and the Running Lane

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Runners return to TOP in OBR (unless there was an intervening play) and to TOI in FED

The intervening play in the OP was R3 scoring on the squeeze bunt before the RLI...score the run.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

The intervening play in the OP was R3 scoring on the squeeze bunt before the RLI...score the run.

A runner crossing a base is not, by definition, "a play" in the context of this rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bluehair

The intervening play in the OP was R3 scoring on the squeeze bunt before the RLI...score the run.

Not if the defense didn't play on R3 (again, I didn't watch the video, but the description in the OP seems to exclude any play on R3)

[bluehair]

The video was a play in last night's game. There was no RLI on that play.

The OP was speculating on whether it would be good strategy to throw at BR out of the RL if R3 is scoring on a suicide squeeze. I think I read the Interference comment wrong (mis-interpreted the word intervening).

So if R3 takes off, BR lays down the bunt, R3 crosses HP as fielder fields the bunt, then hits BR, who is out of the RL, with a throw to 1B , then R3 returns? In OBR yes, in Fed, no?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bluehair

The video was a play in last night's game. There was no RLI on that play.

The OP was speculating on whether it would be good strategy to throw at BR out of the RL if R3 is scoring on a suicide squeeze. I think I read the Interference comment wrong (mis-interpreted the word intervening).

So if R3 takes off, BR lays down the bunt, R3 crosses HP as fielder fields the bunt, then hits BR, who is out of the RL, with a throw to 1B , then R3 returns? In OBR yes, in Fed, no?

Runners return to TOP in OBR (unless there was an intervening play) and to TOI in FED

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Runners return to TOP in OBR (unless there was an intervening play) and to TOI in FED

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.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bluehair

The intervening play in the OP was R3 scoring on the squeeze bunt before the RLI...score the run.

False. See definition of a play.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

False. See definition of a play.

I have an understanding what a play is. My misunderstanding was in the definition of intervening and was which play was the intervening one (if there is one). You have a pitch (a play, I believe) a bunt (a play, I believe), a runner scoring (without a play, I beleive), and an interferred with throw to 1B (a play). After re-reading the interference comment, I believe the exception to not returning R3 is if there is an intervening play is between the bunt play and the interference play not between the pitch play and the interference play.

I find it interesting that the OBR rule makers intended to punish the team who RLI by returning R3, even though the interference occurs after R3 scores while the Fed rule makers intended the opposite. This is a rules diff that I always have a hard time remembering.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I have an understanding what a play is. My misunderstanding was in the definition of intervening and was which play was the intervening one (if there is one). You have a pitch (a play, I believe) a bunt (a play, I believe), a runner scoring (without a play, I beleive), and an interferred with throw to 1B (a play). After re-reading the interference comment, I believe the exception to not returning R3 is if there is an intervening play is between the bunt play and the interference play not between the pitch play and the interference play.

I find it interesting that the OBR rule makers intended to punish the team who RLI by returning R3, even though the interference occurs after R3 scores while the Fed rule makers intended the opposite. This is a rules diff that I always have a hard time remembering.

A pitch is not a play. A bunt is not a play. You put a lie to your statement that you have an understanding of what a play is. There's a definition.

The easy (but not perfect) way to remember is generally, a play is an attempt to get someone out. You're making it harder than it needs to be by wondering if all these other things are plays and concerning yourself with what came between what.

The correct answer has been posted here a few times. The "intervening play" would come about if the fielder (for example) threw home first and then the catcher tried to get the out at first... THAT would be an intervening play, changing the ruling.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You put a lie to your statement...

First, I may be mistaken, but if you're calling me a lier, {deleted}.

Second, I had no idea what intervening meant in a baseball context, so I looked it up in my Funk & Wagnall. F&W didn't have a baseball context definition either, so I had to piece it together. Intervening means coming in between other things. So it made sense to me that the baseball context is that the intervening play comes in between other things...plays, pitches, whatever.

Third, I concurred that the answer to the OP question was that R3 returned. I agreed that R3 scoring wasn't an "intervening play". So WTF is your beef ?

Fourth, If you say that a play is an attempt to get someone out, how is a pitch not an attempt to get someone out and a not play. I know there is a "pitch or play" reference in the RB. Is that the only cite? And why does the squeeze play definition use the word play?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

First, I may be mistaken, but if you're calling me a lier, ...

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.

Third, I concurred that the answer to the OP question was that R3 returned. I agreed that R3 scoring wasn't an "intervening play". So WTF is your beef ?

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

Fourth, If you say that a play is an attempt to get someone out, how is a pitch not an attempt to get someone out and a not play. I know there is a "pitch or play" reference in the RB. Is that the only cite? And why does the squeeze play definition use the word play?

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.

[bob jenkins]

"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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Fourth, If you say that a play is an attempt to get someone out, how is a pitch not an attempt to get someone out and a not play. I know there is a "pitch or play" reference in the RB. Is that the only cite? And why does the squeeze play definition use the word play?

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...

[JJ]

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

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by bluehair

The intervening play in the OP was R3 scoring on the squeeze bunt before the RLI...score the run.

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