BR collides with F3 after catch

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by DTQ_Blue

This

Dead ball INT; BR out, any and all runners return to base held at TOP. Easy peasy.

I can't give you a specific rules cite, as my books are packed, but the Fed Dead Ball Chart in the middle of the book is a great place to start looking for the rule number.

[dlsumpntx]

If interference is called after the catch then it's interference by a retired batter/runner.

[Tru_in_Blu]

This is a case of a retired (batter) runner interfering.

Whenever INT is called, someone has to be out.

The BR was out on the catch by F3, then INT'd.

If INT is called, are we calling it on the BR and just calling her out? This ignores the fact that the catch was made before INT occurred.

If you don't call INT, what rule allows you to send the runner back to third base?

Try NFHS Case Play 8.6.18 Sit. B.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

If you don't call INT, what rule allows you to send the runner back to third base?

Try NFHS Case Play 8.6.18 Sit. B.

8.6.13.

Since the rule does not specifically address this issue, I could see how this rule could be construed to kill the ball and return runners.

This is admittedly a stretch. Then again if the word "maliciously" was removed from Art 14......but that would also be a stretch.

My issue with the play and applicable rules is that there was no interference. As noted, the runner did not break for home until F3 was knocked to the ground, so at the time of the collision, there was no play with which to interfere.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

My issue with the play and applicable rules is that there was no interference. As noted, the runner did not break for home until F3 was knocked to the ground, so at the time of the collision, there was no play with which to interfere.

(Bold mine) Why does the bolded part have to be true? It seems to me the most minimal stretch is to treat this the same way we treat obstruction. It's actively happening until the runner recovers. Thus a runner tripped going around second just before getting to the base who falls between 2nd and 3rd was obstructed in between both 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd. A fielder knocked down is actively interfered with until she recovers (but it wouldn't be a play if there was nothing to do in that time period). Usually that doesn't matter because the interference kills the ball. Here it would matter.
I'm not necessarily arguing for this (though it makes the most sense to me) just asking why that isn't the best reading of the hole in the rules.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

(Bold mine) Why does the bolded part have to be true? It seems to me the most minimal stretch is to treat this the same way we treat obstruction. It's actively happening until the runner recovers. Thus a runner tripped going around second just before getting to the base who falls between 2nd and 3rd was obstructed in between both 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd. A fielder knocked down is actively interfered with until she recovers (but it wouldn't be a play if there was nothing to do in that time period). Usually that doesn't matter because the interference kills the ball. Here it would matter.
I'm not necessarily arguing for this (though it makes the most sense to me) just asking why that isn't the best reading of the hole in the rules.

So you are not going to kill the ball at the time of the collision? Anything subsequent to the ball becoming dead is irrelevant. On an INT call, we even suspend and rule on the location of the ball at the time of the INT and regardless of where the ball goes, its status does not change.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So you are not going to kill the ball at the time of the collision? Anything subsequent to the ball becoming dead is irrelevant. On an INT call, we even suspend and rule on the location of the ball at the time of the INT and regardless of where the ball goes, its status does not change.

Why would I kill the ball? There hasn't been any interference yet because interference requires a play and we all agree there's no play to interfere with yet. Since the ball isn't dead subsequent events do matter.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by youngump

Why would I kill the ball? There hasn't been any interference yet because interference requires a play and we all agree there's no play to interfere with yet. Since the ball isn't dead subsequent events do matter.

Am active runner can be picked off at a base or try to advance.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Why would I kill the ball? There hasn't been any interference yet because interference requires a play and we all agree there's no play to interfere with yet. Since the ball isn't dead subsequent events do matter.

I believe 8.6.13 covers that. As I read the OP, F3 was executing an immediate act of making a play on the BR and the effect includes an immediate dead ball.

As previously noted, it can be a stretch, but I believe this to be the closest rule in providing guidance to the umpire for this situation.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Dead ball INT; BR out, any and all runners return to base held at TOP. Easy peasy.

Runners return at time of INT.

[DTQ_Blue]

Tru n Blue, I read the casebook play (thanks for pointing it out). In that play, the runner, R1, committed to try to score before the BR acted to prevent F3 from making a play on R1. Clearly, the BRs action adversely affected F3 in making that play. In my game, R1 was going nowhere when that catch was made by F3, i.e., no play was in the offing. So the collision did not hinder F3 from making a play on a runner in motion like the casebook example, rather, it allowed R1 to go in motion.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Well, since it was a foul pop up, the runner from third wouldn't (shouldn't) have "been in motion". If anything, she probably retreated to the base in order to tag up.

I agree that on a routine pop up to an infielder, a runner is unlikely to try and tag up.

However, once F3 was wiped out (accidentally, inadvertently, unintentionally), now the runner made the decision to risk advancing. So once the fielder went down, as a result of a retired (batter) runner INT, we have nothing?

So in the case play I referenced, the ruling is:
If, in the umpire's judgment, B2 hindered F3's play on R1, R1 is declared out.

I can't see the defensive coach being quiet about this if the run is allowed to score given that his fielder was knocked over.

And I don't know how you return the runner to third base if INT wasn't called.

So how do you reconcile this?

[DTQ_Blue]

I was PU. Initially, I ruled the ball dead and sent R1 back to 3rd. My partner then approached me and said that that was not the correct call and convinced me to call interference by a retired runner, which meant that R1 was also out.

I agree with you that only because the runner chose to advance after the collision, was the collision interference. If the runner had stayed put, no interference. I didn't like having to make that call, but I think my partner was right, by the book.

If I ever have another play like that, I'd be tempted to just say that the ball was dead at the time of the collision because it was necessary to check on the well-being of F3. Then, I could just put R1 back at 3B.

I know that's stretching things a bit, but I think that interference by a retired BR, with an additional out is unnecessarily punitive, even if its the right call.

[DTQ_Blue]

Irishmafia, could it be said that the collision altered the action of F3 in the immediate act of making a play on BR because F3 had not completed the play on BR (voluntary release of ball from glove) at the time of the collision. The catch had occurred but not the release from glove. That could justify killing the ball.

[CecilOne]

Interference requires a play to be interfered with.

But, the knock down hindered the fielder's ability to make a play on R1 when R1 advanced or even if R1 did not advance. *

Some interference instances have a delayed effect, not necessarily immediate. It looks like this is that type of case and so interference applies.
The call should have been at the moment of collision, then judge whether the possible double play fits.

Hard to call, hard to explain, but "big bucks".


* Think pickoff or throw home to prevent the score.