Question on a case play:

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

A batter-runner is not a runner.

Breaking up a DP: if the interference is by a runner not yet retired, the trailing runner is also out. If by a retired runner, the runner closest to home is also out (which could end up being a trailing runner).

Assume for our purposes that the runner IS trying to break up a DP (because I told you so).

Which runner and how?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

OK, let's actually do the math. Assume this is for JO play.

Base distance is 60 feet.

Running lane starts half way from HP to first, so 60 / 2 = 30 feet.

Scenario I posted: 20 feet from HP means runner hasn't reached the running lane yet (i.e. 10 feet short); 40 feet from HP means runner has gone 10 feet beyond where the running lane starts.

If the batter runner is running in foul territory the entire time and gets plunked with a throw from F2 standing at HP, does it matter if the BR has reached the 30 foot mark or not?

Correct, I was thinking 40 feet from 1st, why I don't know.

[Tru_in_Blu]

USA 8.2.F When the BR interferes:
3. With a thrown ball while out of the batter's box.

NOTE: If this interference is an attempt to break up a double play, the runner closest to home plate shall be called out.

Since the lead runner has been retired, and the BR then interferes with the thrown ball, at this point we have INT and an immediate dead ball.

If we then apply the penalty, who is the runner closest to home plate? NOT the retired runner, right? Who's next? R2?

Just reading the rule and trying to apply as written.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Which runner and how?

The batter-runner running to first base the entire way in fair territory.

[josephrt1]

The rule as written (the Note in 8.2.F) does state the runner closest to home is out. In your scenario that would be R2 because R1 has already scored and presumably R2 is still running the bases. But its also hard to imagine in your scenario that a batter-runner hit in the back while running to first is attempting to break up a double play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

The batter-runner running to first base the entire way in fair territory.

And other than with the defender receiving the throw at first (assuming s/he had reached the lane), what play did the retired BR interfere?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

The rule as written (the Note in 8.2.F) does state the runner closest to home is out. In your scenario that would be R2 because R1 has already scored and presumably R2 is still running the bases. But its also hard to imagine in your scenario that a batter-runner hit in the back while running to first is attempting to break up a double play.

OK, Joseph, your imagining gene needs a little tweaking. For your purposes only, IMAGINE that the BR while 34.5 feet from HP actually looks back towards HP and sees F2 throwing to F3 in an attempt to retire B4 at first base. In an effort to prevent the apparent DP, B4 swats the ball to the ground.

Also, R1 did not score, she was out on the force play at HP.

Now, please apply the appropriate rule(s).

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And other than with the defender receiving the throw at first (assuming s/he had reached the lane), what play did the retired BR interfere?

Just the play at first base. And the BR is not considered retired until such time as the umpire declares the INT and calls a dead ball.

Now the rule for BR interference doesn't specify that the act be intentional. Although I can accept that an action that is an attempt to break up a DP could involve an intentional act.

In any case, if you are the umpire in this case, and in your judgement you maintain that whatever the act was on the part of the BR was an attempt to prevent the DP, how do you rule?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Just the play at first base. And the BR is not considered retired until such time as the umpire declares the INT and calls a dead ball.

Now the rule for BR interference doesn't specify that the act be intentional. Although I can accept that an action that is an attempt to break up a DP could involve an intentional act.

In any case, if you are the umpire in this case, and in your judgement you maintain that whatever the act was on the part of the BR was an attempt to prevent the DP, how do you rule?

You are asking me to make a ruling on a TWP. Given the scenario, there is no possibility of another out.

IMO, you are trying to read too much into this rule.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Given the scenario, there is no possibility of another out.

I bet you could sell it!

[teebob21]

I might be able to sell ice to an Eskimo, but there's no rule support.