INT Interp

[Dakota]

The difference is the fly ball can be caught (in the umpire's judgment) with ordinary effort.

[blu_bawls]

There would be almost no evidence that a "double play" could be possible. I call the runner out and keep the batter at 3-2.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by blu_bawls

There would be almost no evidence that a "double play" could be possible. I call the runner out and keep the batter at 3-2.

Really? The runner is well off the base and close enough to the fielder to be tagged after the ball is caught.

Besides, if you do not rule the BR out, what do you do with the rule cited above? Ignore it?

[bigsig]

I agree with Dakota here. R1 had to intentionally IF since the foul ball was near the on deck circle, obviously trying to preserve B2's at bat. There would have been one out when this rutine ball was cought and a possible double play with R1 that far off the base. Why give them the benefit of only one out?

[MNBlue]

I have 2 outs as well. R1 is out for the interference. Clear cut. BR is out because of the exception. The possibility of a double play is irrelevant.

If I can judge whether a fly ball is caught with ordinary effort for the purposes of an IF, I can certainly judge it for the purposes of enforcing this rule as well.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

I have 2 outs as well. R1 is out for the interference. Clear cut. BR is out because of the exception. The possibility of a double play is irrelevant.

Well... the possibility of a double play is not irrelevant, because the possibility of the double play is the entire reason for the exception in the first place.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Well... the possibility of a double play is not irrelevant, because the possibility of the double play is the entire reason for the exception in the first place.

There's only one runner on base - the ball is foul - how could there be a double play? Even if you call both players out, I wouldn't classify that as a double play. I would have R1 out and batter back in the box.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

There's only one runner on base - the ball is foul - how could there be a double play? Even if you call both players out, I wouldn't classify that as a double play. I would have R1 out and batter back in the box.

I suppose you've never witnessed an out on a pop fly caught over foul territory. Amazing if you've never seen this. There could easily be a double play - caught fly, tag runner (who is near enough, considering they interfered!) or throw back third. Two outs.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Well... the possibility of a double play is not irrelevant, because the possibility of the double play is the entire reason for the exception in the first place.

I understand your point, but that was not what I was thinking.
As relating to interference by a retired runner to prevent a double play, where we can rule a second out, the possibility of a double play in the OP is not relevant, since the interference, in all liklihood was not committed intentionally to prevent a double play.
It was probably a running mistake, unless it was men's slow pitch, where it probably was an attempt to prevent a catch as opposed to preventing a double play.

[Al]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

I have 2 outs as well. R1 is out for the interference. Clear cut. BR is out because of the exception. The possibility of a double play is irrelevant.

If I can judge whether a fly ball is caught with ordinary effort for the purposes of an IF, I can certainly judge it for the purposes of enforcing this rule as well.

If a base runner takes a catch away by interference I'm not giving the bat back to the batter that would have been out with ordinary effort. Isn't that what the exception is there for? I agree with you this is clear cut and we have two outs. ...Al