BR interferes with play at home

[Reffing Rev.]

USA

R1 at 3rd with 1 out. Ball 4 to B2 gets past F2. B2 backs out of the right hand box as F2 fields the ball rebounding from the backstop and R1 attempts to advance to home. B2 realizes it was ball 4 and starts to advance to first such that b2 and f2 collide on top of home plate just before r1 touches home.

1 out? If so, who (and where are runners placed)? 2 outs?

Curious if there is a difference between rule sets on this play?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

USA

R1 at 3rd with 1 out. Ball 4 to B2 gets past F2. B2 backs out of the right hand box as F2 fields the ball rebounding from the backstop and R1 attempts to advance to home. B2 realizes it was ball 4 and starts to advance to first such that b2 and f2 collide on top of home plate just before r1 touches home.

1 out? If so, who (and where are runners placed)? 2 outs?

Curious if there is a difference between rule sets on this play?

Assuming the sequence is as noted, and in your judgment the collision prevented F2 from making play on R1 prior to scoring, the only rule I can find that addresses such INT is 8.2.G which rules both BR & R out

[Reffing Rev.]

Does intent affect this? It was obvious there was no intent. If intent is a considering factor and there is no intent then what would the result be?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

Does intent affect this? It was obvious there was no intent. If intent is a considering factor and there is no intent then what would the result be?

Depends on how the umpire interprets the wording.

The batter runner is out when the batter-runner interferes with a play at home plate in an attempt to prevent an out at home plate.
EFFECT: The runner is also called out

If you dismiss this rule, I cannot find a rule which even affords an INT call on the BR

Of course, there is always 8.2.Q (collision), but I find that a stretch to apply it here

[josephrt1]

8.2.G is the rule for a batter runner but it includes the wording "in an attempt ot prevent an out at home plate"

What if it was not an "attempt to prevent" but rather just a mistake by a batter runner not knowing what to do and stepping in the way? I'd be inclined to not call the runner out, but only the batter-runner. But as stated this rule doesn't say you can just call the batter-runner out if you do not think it was an attempt. it only say what ot do if you DO think it was an attempt to prevent the out.

The closest related rule, and the one I would probably default to is for the batter. There is not much difference between a batter and batter-runner in this situation. The same situation could have arisen if it was only ball 3. The batter could get in the way and we can just call the batter out and put runner back on base if we the umpire judge this was not an intent to prevent an out at the plate. i am referring to Rule 7.6.U and its effect.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

8.2.G is the rule for a batter runner but it includes the wording "in an attempt ot prevent an out at home plate"

What if it was not an "attempt to prevent" but rather just a mistake by a batter runner not knowing what to do and stepping in the way? I'd be inclined to not call the runner out, but only the batter-runner. But as stated this rule doesn't say you can just call the batter-runner out if you do not think it was an attempt. it only say what ot do if you DO think it was an attempt to prevent the out.

The closest related rule, and the one I would probably default to is for the batter. There is not much difference between a batter and batter-runner in this situation. The same situation could have arisen if it was only ball 3. The batter could get in the way and we can just call the batter out and put runner back on base if we the umpire judge this was not an intent to prevent an out at the plate. i am referring to Rule 7.6.U and its effect.

Once you have a batter/runner, anything under rule 7 no longer applies.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

8.2.G is the rule for a batter runner but it includes the wording "in an attempt ot prevent an out at home plate"

What if it was not an "attempt to prevent" but rather just a mistake by a batter runner not knowing what to do and stepping in the way? I'd be inclined to not call the runner out, but only the batter-runner. But as stated this rule doesn't say you can just call the batter-runner out if you do not think it was an attempt. it only say what ot do if you DO think it was an attempt to prevent the out.

I understand and noted it was a matter of interpretation. Then again, if the BR had immediately departed for 1B, I would agree, but that did not happen.

The closest related rule, and the one I would probably default to is for the batter. There is not much difference between a batter and batter-runner in this situation. The same situation could have arisen if it was only ball 3. The batter could get in the way and we can just call the batter out and put runner back on base if we the umpire judge this was not an intent to prevent an out at the plate. i am referring to Rule 7.6.U and its effect.

Not possible. By rule, you no longer have a batter on the field, but a batter-runner. You have a batter due up next, but that isn't the player which prevented F2 from making a play.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not possible. By rule, you no longer have a batter on the field, but a batter-runner. You have a batter due up next, but that isn't the player which prevented F2 from making a play.

OK, understood. But what do you do if you don't think the batter-runner got in the way in "an attempt to prevent an out at the plate"?

__________________________________________________ _______

There are 2 other possible ways of supporting only the batter-runner being called out with interference at the plate.

1. Rule 8.2 is headlined as "The batter-runner is out". When you then go to 8.2.G it states if this is an attempt to prevent an out at home plate Effect; "the runner is also out." Because the word also is used, this implies, but could have been more clearly stated, that the batter runner is out "when the batter runner interferes"

2. RS 33-A.1: reads: Runner interference includes - A runner or batter-runner who interferes with a fielder executing a play.

I would interpret both of these statements to have the batter runner out for the situation in the OP, and if the umpire judges the batter-runner attempted to prevent the out at home plate, a 2nd out would be called on the runner (8.2.G).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

OK, understood. But what do you do if you don't think the batter-runner got in the way in "an attempt to prevent an out at the plate"?

__________________________________________________ _______

There are 2 other possible ways of supporting only the batter-runner being called out with interference at the plate.

1. Rule 8.2 is headlined as "The batter-runner is out". When you then go to 8.2.G it states if this is an attempt to prevent an out at home plate Effect; "the runner is also out." Because the word also is used, this implies, but could have been more clearly stated, that the batter runner is out "when the batter runner interferes"

2. RS 33-A.1: reads: Runner interference includes - A runner or batter-runner who interferes with a fielder executing a play.

I would interpret both of these statements to have the batter runner out for the situation in the OP, and if the umpire judges the batter-runner attempted to prevent the out at home plate, a 2nd out would be called on the runner (8.2.G).

I don't disagree, but my point is there is no rule to suppert the RS. An RS should be supported by a rule.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't disagree, but my point is there is no rule to suppert the RS. An RS should be supported by a rule.

Agreed. It would be nice to see 8.2.F add a statement like this: "7. with a play at home plate"

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am going to throw this out for sugar and giggles:

I am going to start at the point where the B/R realizes that the Pitch was Ball 4 and that she is entitled to at least 1B and to continue on to 2B at her own risk. F1 does not have the Ball when F1 and the B/R collide. I do not care about the Runner on 3B who is now trying to score. In my humble opinion why are we considering charging B/R with Interference against F1 when we should be considering charging F1 with Obstruction against the B/R?

MTD, Sr.

The way I read your situation is different than the original post. In the OP there is the appearance of a play about to occur at the plate. In that case there are rules and rule supplements covering that situation that call for at least 1 out. In the situation you propose, if there is not an apparent play at the plate, I would agree with your obstruction call.

Completely inverse play: A couple of years ago there was a case study, maybe presented at ASA clinic; Catcher retrieved a dropped 3rd strike and was standing on the plate in act of throwing to 1st base when runner from 3rd slides into catcher and knocks her down. The instruction was this was interference with a fielder in possession of the ball in the act of throwing. Runner sliding in is out.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

The way I read your situation is different than the original post. In the OP there is the appearance of a play about to occur at the plate. In that case there are rules and rule supplements covering that situation that call for at least 1 out. In the situation you propose, if there is not an apparent play at the plate, I would agree with your obstruction call.

Completely inverse play: A couple of years ago there was a case study, maybe presented at ASA clinic; Catcher retrieved a dropped 3rd strike and was standing on the plate in act of throwing to 1st base when runner from 3rd slides into catcher and knocks her down. The instruction was this was interference with a fielder in possession of the ball in the act of throwing. Runner sliding in is out.

For MTD's play, the catcher didn't have the ball, so it doesn't matter if she was about to get it. (That's not an opinion on the rules just your response.)
For your inverse play, the clinic got it wrong. If the catcher was on the plate and slid into this is interference by a runner who has scored. She can't be out. It's got to be the lead runner who is out here.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by youngump

For MTD's play, the catcher didn't have the ball, so it doesn't matter if she was about to get it. (That's not an opinion on the rules just your response.)

Not sure what you are commenting on. I agreed with MTD that in the play he described it would be obstruction. [also there was no discussion of "about to get it". Only confirming that in his play there was no apparent play at the plate because as he stated, the catcher did not have the ball, thus obstruction rather than interference.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

Not sure what you are commenting on. I agreed with MTD that in the play he described it would be obstruction. [also there was no discussion of "about to get it". Only confirming that in his play there was no apparent play at the plate because as he stated, the catcher did not have the ball, thus obstruction rather than interference.

You wrote that the difference between MTD's play and this was the play "about to occur at the plate." I visualized that as the catcher about to catch the ball for a tag. On re-reading it I think you just meant the catcher was about to tag the runner coming from third.