Counting The Run
 

Able is on third base and Baker is on second base with one out.
Daniel hits the ball on the ground to the shortstop, who scoops up the ball and tags Baker out.
When attempting to throw the ball to first base, the shortstop is interfered with by Baker.
At the time of the interference, Able has reached home plate and Daniel has reached 1st base.
Assume the throw was never completed, no play at 1st.

My opinion: Daniel reaching 1st before being out allows the run to count.

Questions:
1) Does the BR being out as “closest to home” occur simultaneously with the INT?
2) If so, since with a dead ball nothing happens, does that alter the run counting if INT occurs before the BR reaches 1st?
3) Does a BR being awarded 1st on the INT change the ruling?

Comment based on any rules, but please specify.

I'll take a shot at this.

1. Since the rules for interference state runners return to base last touched "at time of interference", I would assume the out closest to home also is meant at the instant of the interference.

2. If the B/R reached 1st I think the 3rd out is not a force and would not negate the run. If B/R had not reached 1B prior to the interference and she is the runner closet to home, I would take away the run. [i know B/R being put out before reaching 1B is not considered a Force Out in most codes.]

3. I think the answer to question 3 requires a different scenario. If R1 had scored before the interference, and R2 was out for interference (not tagged out as in the OP) and the interference by R2 was the 3rd out but was not a force, I think run scores even if the B/R had not yet reached 1B because on interference the penalty says the B/R is awarded 1B.

That's my take but I'm a little fuzzy on #3.

My opinion...

The run counts because the runner touched home before the INT.
From the OP, it sounds like Baker did something AFTER being tagged out. So we now have INT by a retired runner. This requires the runner closest to home to also be ruled out. R1 has already scored prior to the INT, so the next closest runner to home is the BR or R if having passed 1B.
The BR cannot be awarded 1B as she would be called out per USA 8.7.P .

How about: Therefore there was no play to be made thus no interference.

^ This was my initial thought. I came to the conclusion that if Daniel had simply run through first and not attempted to advance, this was probably the correct answer. No interference. Run scores, two out, R1.

However, if Daniel rounded first and a throw by F6 could be interpreted as "making a play"... then the run scores, BR out on the interference by a retired runner, end of inning.

Yabbut...

When attempting to throw the ball to first base, the shortstop is interfered with by Baker.

F6 is attempting to play on the BR.

We are told it is INT. I don't think you can just rationalize that away.

There must be an available play in order to have interference. If the BR had already reached 1st base at the time of the interference then there was no available play.

Were we told correctly? That is part of the issue.

Why did F6 attempt a throw if the runner was already there?

Did F6 really have a play or was it just a nonsense throw that young players often make/

Maybe the fielder didn't see what the umpire saw: that the BR had already touched 1B. F6 was busy looking at the runner he was tagging, then started his throwing motion as the runner, I don't know, put up his arm to hack the fielder's throwing arm? Doesn't have to be a possible play, doesn't have to be a nonsense throw, just one made in ignorance thru lack of X-ray vision. So not interference, but don't blame the fielder.

Since this thread seemed to have died without really answering the OP's questions, perhaps I'll take a stab at them. I'm standing by my conclusion above on the original situation until somebody tells me I'm incorrect: If there's no play on BR, it's not interference. If there is a play available, BR is out. In both cases, run scores.

Why wouldn't it be? Does the BR being out occur simultaneously with the legal touching of first base by a fielder in possession of the ball? I honestly don't know how else one would read the phase "A runner is out when ..."

If the INT occurred before BR reached first, then the BR didn't not reach first and the run would not count if that was the third out. (NFHS 9-1-1-a)

I tried to understand this, but I'm guessing you've changed the situation in your head a bit. Consider this: Same situation as OP, but 2 outs. Batter hits ball toward F6. Speedy Able crosses the plate first. Then, Baker interferes with F6's attempt to make an initial play. Baker is out (9-6-10-a), BR is awarded first with a FC (9-6 Penalty for articles 10-14). I think your question is, does the run score here? My answer would be yes, regardless of whether BR touched first before the INT or not. 9-1-1-a does not apply as the BR was not the third out and none of the other exceptions in 9-1-1 apply either.

Sorry, I have not been able to get back to this, in spite of some good points and thorough comments.
My intent in posting this was a good "drilling down" discussion of the timing aspects; which all did with several good points.
Sure, hypothetical about who reached which base at what time, especially Daniel reaching 1st before the INT, and whether SS had a play or not.
I visualized the Baker and SS play near 3rd, allowing some time for Daniel and Able to run. That also ignores why the SS did not throw to HP.
SS having a play was assumed in the OP, without specifying why.

My opinion: Daniel reaching 1st before being out allows the run to count.
Based on Daniel reaching 1st "safely".

Questions:
1) Does the BR being out as “closest to home” occur simultaneously with the INT?
We agree that it does.

2) If so, since with a dead ball nothing happens, does that alter the run counting if INT occurs before the BR reaches 1st?
Making the BR is out before reaching 1st?

3) Does a BR being awarded 1st on the INT change the ruling?
My point was that if a BR is awarded 1st on another runner's INT, the BR has by definition reached 1st safely. If so, that would allow the run to count, regardless of where the BR was at the time of the INT.
The BR would still be out as "closest to home".
I can't tell if anyone really agreed or disagreed.

Of course, the award of 1st assumes the BR was not out, just needing to do something with the BR after the dead ball.

FWIW, I think your scenario has some apparent contradictions that make it difficult to respond definitively.

1) You state there IS interference; more than a few responding question how that even could be, when the scenario doesn't suggest a "play".

Perhaps you could expand on the actual interference you are considering.

2) You state BR had passed first, but then want to phrase an "award" of first.

Once BR passes first before an interference, that is an attained base; if a dead ball occurs BEFORE BR reaches first, then BR is awarded first (if not out by another rule, such as interference).

If the interference occurs as per your OP, I see no questions. R1 has already scored, BR has already passed first. R2 is tagged out for out #2; BR is the runner closest to home that is out #3. BR already passed first, so out #3 occurs with BR having reached first safely. Run scores.

If the interference occurs BEFORE BR reaches first, the run does not score.

I tried to clarify that this is a hypothetical to examine the rules minutely; even if not likely. The interference would be Baker interfering with the SS throw, even if not smart by SS and having to be late in Baker's move toward 3rd. With Daniel reaching 1st, there could be a play after the base. The OP says there was interference and it was called, so for the sake of detailing the rule, please assume so.

The 3 questions were then further drilling into the rules, apparently I was not clear about that. I should not have asked so much at once.

Which I said, or at least intended.


Agree, hope my OP opinion said that.

I've read several comments about the play by the shortstop and attempting a throw to first after the runner had reached. What if Daniels thought the ball had gone into the outfield and was rounding 1st. the SS was throwing behind Daniels in an attempt to get her returning to first base?

In my opinion, the run scores because the third out was made after the batter-runner reached first base.

The question on this that I saw was slightly different.

Same situation, but the interference occurs prior to Daniels reaching first base, but after Abel scored.

The ruling I recall is that the run does not score. The reasoning was that no run can score when the third out occurs prior to the batter-runner reaching first base.

What would confuse this even more is if Daniels had passed first base (but missed the base and it was properly appealed.

Run would still count as the runner is considered to have reached first once they passed the base and the appeal would not be a force out

That is incorrect. The batter/runner is assumed to have touched the base until properly appealed. If the defense appeals the miss of first prior to the batter/runner returning to the base then they never reached first safely.

Interesting scenario. Usually when the BR misses 1B, the appeal has to be made before the runner gets back to the base. That's the typical live ball appeal.

In this string, we have an INT call which results in an immediate dead ball. The BR is probably not going to stop running to 1B. She may be passing the base after the INT has been called or before. Would it matter?

When there's a dead ball, doesn't a runner have the opportunity to correct a base running mistake? I.E. could she simply return to 1B without the possibility of an appeal?

Before the Appeal can be made the Runner has to be given the chance to correct a base running mistake before the appeal is allowed

I admit that I am late in joining the party but this evening, after Mother's Day dinner, was the first time that Mark, Jr., and I had a chance to sit down and discuss this play.


I) We do not have access to the USA Softball Rules Book but are very confident that the Ruling will be the same as the NFHS and NCAA Rulings. Therefore, I will only respond per NFHS and NCAA Rules.


II) Let us describe the Play per accepted Softball nomenclature:

A) R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, one out, and B4 is the Batter.

B) Ground Ball to F6, and R1 and R2 are off at the crack of the Bat.

C) F6 tags R2 for the 2nd out of the inning.

D) The moment that R2 is tagged out R2 becomes a Retired Runner.

E) R1 acquires HP and B/R4 acquires 1B after R2 becomes a Retired Runner.


III) Any actions by R2 after II-E, by Rule, are not Interference.

A) R1 had already acquired HP and had become a Retired Runner. Therefore there is no play to be made on R1 by F6.

B) B/R4 had already acquired 1B and unless B/R4 was attempting to go to 2B there was no play to be made on B/R4 by F6. It is highly unlikely that B/R4 was attempting to go to 2B (99.999% of the time in plays like the B/R is running through 1B). Therefore there is no play to be made on B/R4 by F6.

And quite frankly in all of the Junior's college softball games that I have watched him umpire for the last six seasons I know of only one player that could possibly be past 1B in the above described play: Brianna Glass, a senior this year at Indiana Institute of Technology in the Wolverine-Hoosier Athletic Conference, an NAIA Div. II school, who set the single season stolen base record, NCAA Div. I, II, and III, and NAIA Div. I and II with 81 stolen bases in 89 attempts; I saw her score from 1B on a single to Right Field last year. But I digress.


IV) Which brings us back to R2's actions after R2 became a Retired Runner, and R1 had acquired HP and B/R4 had acquired 1B. R2's actions are:

A) Trivial and are to be ignored,

B) Rise to the level of Unsportsmanlike Conduct which only requires a Verbal Warning, in which case the BU should declare the Ball Dead immediately and issue the Verbal Warning.

C) NFHS: Rise to the level of Unsportsmanlike Conduct which requires that R2 be Restricted to the Bench, in which case the BU should declare the Ball Dead immediately.

D) Rise to the level of Unsportsmanlike Conduct that requires R2 to be Ejected from the Game, in which case the BU should declare the Ball Dead immediately.

MTD, Sr.

That is not what you stated in your initial comment. You said the runner is considered to have touched the base and the run would score.

I was not addressing nor did you address that it was a dead ball situation. The fact of the matter is and I did state that if a proper appeal was made then the batter/runner never did reach first base.

I will be more thorough in my wording in the future

So here is a situation. Same instance, but the interference by the retired runner happens as F6 (I think that was the defensive player) is throwing the ball. The BR misses first base, and seeing the ball go over the F3's head, goes straight to second base,, having missed first. (Even though the umpire is yelling dead ball). She stops at second. The defense then appeals the missed base.

She has completed her base running by not attempting to go back and touch first. The missed base is then properly appealed.

Run does not count.

Correct but runner still could have gone back and touched first in this scenario but chose not to as many in this scenario do.