But covered by the same rule.
As I said, two quotes from the same rule.And it is certainly not at all impossible, or even improbable, that ASA would agree with you. They've done sillier things. It just seems to me that both runners (R2 in the OP and BR in my version) are out under the same rule and should be treated the same and that committing INT should not be a means of converting a force situation into a timing play.

Yep, they sure did.

I didn't know we couldn't offer our opinion if it agreed with one already stated! :eek:

Yes, but no. BR out is rule 7, R out is rule 8. Both covered in "run does not score" rule 5.

I know I could argue both ways, I'm just siding with the timing play on this more than the force out. I don't see how it's written in any part that this could be a force. It's INT, plain as day... and I don't recall ever seeing anything where a form of INT on a R constitutes (or could constitute) a F/O.

I was referring to rule 5, since that is the crux of the discussion (does the run score, not whether the runner is out).

If the interference rule trumps the force situation, how about this:

R1 on 3B. R2 on 1B. 2 outs. Squeeze play on, but the bunt is a bit vigorous and makes it to F4, who picks up the ball and is preparing to tag R2. R2 slaps F4's arm, knocking the ball out of F4's hand, but after R1 has crossed home.

INT and run scores? Make this a tie score and the bottom of the 7th and, oh boy, we're havin' fun now!

After reading all of the post so far in this thread, I have trouble scoring the run in this situation.

1) When B4 became a B/R, R2 was forced to move to 2B. R2 was out before reaching 2B. Therefore, R3 does not score.

2) I cannot think that the rules would allow the offense to score a run by committing interference.

3) R2 is an idiot.

MTD, Sr.



P.S. Immediately after submitting this post, I discussed the play with MTD, Jr., and he asked the following question: If R2's interference caused an infielder from making a play on the B/R at 1B, could the umpires unilaterally impose an advantageous fourth (4th) out?

You can always express agreement with me. :p :D :D

I was just reinforcing my position which was so far back and so brief I felt ignored. ;) :D :D

Along with that, we can all make useless posts like this one by me. :cool:

I cannot think that the rules would allow the offense to score a run by committing interference.

It can happen in ASA, even with deliberate INT.

If R2's interference caused an infielder from making a play on the B/R at 1B, could the umpires unilaterally impose an advantageous fourth (4th) out?

Not in ASA on a runner who didn't score.

I'm going to second this opinion, and here's why. R2 was forced to vacate 1B and advance to 2B due to B4 becoming a BR. The BR was not called out in this play, so the force is still on. Once R2 touches the ball, that's it, the ball is dead. R2 has now hindered the defense by making contact with a batted ball that has not been touched, nor has it passed any infielder other than the pitcher. R2 should not be allowed to use interference as a advantageous way of taking away a force out. If the runner was put out prior to reaching the base to which they were forced to advance, I'm calling it a force out.

Hmmmmmmmm
 

Couldn't you get an out for passing a runner? Wouldn't the runner going to 2nd have to go behind the batter/runner to touch the fair batted ball which is now in fair territory? Just a thought.

Where did it mention one passing the other? I would have to assume IF the BR advanced, it would have been straight through the base.

8.7.D & RS 39 clearly state that the runners must physically pass each other. The RS goes to the extent of mentioning arms and legs. :eek: I would have to think that you cannot just presume a passing based upon relative position to a base.

In the past in dealing with situations of controversy, ASA has tended to go with the letter of the rule. This is, if I was placing a bet, I'd bet that if ASA issued an official ruling on this, they would apply the interference rule. IMO, that would be a wrong interpretation, but it would narrowly follow the letter of the rule.

Until that eventuality, however, on the field, I would rule the OP (and my variations) to be force outs.

great posts
 

thanks to all for posting such great views on the thread...making me think about all the different senarios that can happen here...any more ideas on MTD's thought about possible 4th out :eek:

An out by interference is not a force out. I think ASA is pretty clear on this matter, and yes, there are occasions where an act of INT may be advantageous to the offense. Example: R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B, 1 out. The batter is notoriously slow runner. Infielders are playing behind the runners and batter hits a routine grounder to F4. R2, knowing that this will likely turn into an inning ending DP, times his/her running into the path of the ball which hits him/her. Dead ball, R2 is out, R1 back to 3B, BR awarded 1B on the INT and credited with a base hit. [Next batter hits a home run to win the game - Hollywood ending, of course.]

Could you make an argument that the runner's play prevented a DP. Probably. Can you justify 2 outs here by rule? Not so sure. But it's a little different than if this runner had already been retired, or if he/she interfered w/ a popup.

Got any backup references to this statement?

Um, in your sitch, if I felt that the runner had done this deliberately, I'd have R1 out based on 8-7-P.

If R1 had already crossed the plate, I'd have the BR out, as they are now the closest to HP. Since they haven't reached 1B yet, no runs score. :p