Bunt and the Running Lane
 

Sorry, I'm sure this is rules 101 stuff, but I'm curious and I find the MLB rules to be organized in a non-counter intuitive way for an outsider.

In the video linked below, the bunt attempt is fielded near the right field line and flipped over the head of the batter. (Runner on first advances to second on the play.) It appears that his feet are to the left of the line. I assume at that point, pretty much any ball that hits him from the fielder's angle is likely to be judged as interfering with the first baseman's attempt to field the ball. The question I had was, what happens to the runner? Is he put back on first base automatically? Also, does it matter if the fielder hits him intentionally because it's easier than trying to throw to the fielder -- I mean, in this case, if the fielder had simply drilled him in the back, is it still interference?

It seems at least potentially interesting as a matter of defensive strategy in a squeeze play, for example. If the bunt is to the right side, and the chances of getting the runner at home are hopeless and it's an important run, it might be worth the pitcher or catcher seeing if they peg the guy outside the running lane if the runner gets put back if the batter is not thinking about it. And, certainly, as a matter of coaching, the batter should know always to get into the running lane on a squeeze attempt, or with runners on base, I would think.

Link (thanks for the imbed). Video: WS2013 Gm5: Lester flips it over to first for the out | MLB.com

<iframe src='http://wapc.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=31191089&width=400&height=22 4&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

(Moved to a new thread ... had nothing to do with the obstruction play in the W.S.)

With the caveat that I didn't watch the video ....

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.

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

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)

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

So what's the problem?

My inappropriate use of a double negative?

Yes - it's still interference.

If it's really obvious then whoever threw the ball better stay loose next time at the plate though.

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.

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.

If you're calling me a lier...
 

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?