Interference and force out

[Dakota]

ASA is also clear that, for rules intents and purposes, the out on the BR at 1B is a force (see, eg., the ruling on the "force" being reinstated if the BR moves back toward home after touching 1B). So, how can INT by the BR be a "force" out for run scoring purposes while INT by any other runner isn't?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

1.FORCE OUT: An out which may be made only when a runner loses the right to the base the runner is occupying because the batter becomes a batter-runner, and before the batter-funner or a trailing runner has been put out.

5.5.B No run shall be scored if the third out of the inning is the result of:
1. A batter-runner being called out prior to reaching first base of any other runner "forced out" due to the batter becoming a batter-runner.

Please note it says if the runner is forced out. The runner is NOT being ruled out due to being forced, but because of an INT call which would have been made whether it was a forced runner or not.

I don't think there is anything "narrow" about it.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...The runner is NOT being ruled out due to being forced, but because of an INT call which would have been made whether it was a forced runner or not.

I don't think there is anything "narrow" about it.

Same can be said in many cases with a tag. Take the OP situation, but instead of the runner picking up the ball, the fielder does and tags the runner. The runner is out because he thought the ball was foul and was meandering back to base. He would have been out whether or not he was forced because he was off the base when tagged. Exempting a runner from the force out due to an infraction by the runner while off the base due to being forced off the base is a narrow (and wrong for the game) interpretation. JMO, of course.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Same can be said in many cases with a tag. Take the OP situation, but instead of the runner picking up the ball, the fielder does and tags the runner. The runner is out because he thought the ball was foul and was meandering back to base. He would have been out whether or not he was forced because he was off the base when tagged. Exempting a runner from the force out due to an infraction by the runner while off the base due to being forced off the base is a narrow (and wrong for the game) interpretation. JMO, of course.

But RS #21 covers that the defense may tag the runner or tag the base to get a force out.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

But RS #21 covers that the defense may tag the runner or tag the base to get a force out.

Yes, I know. I was countering Mike's argument that the runner would have been out even if there was no force, hence it is not a force. I wasn't arguing that a tag is not a force in a force situation. Quite the opposite.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Yes, I know. I was countering Mike's argument that the runner would have been out even if there was no force, hence it is not a force. I wasn't arguing that a tag is not a force in a force situation. Quite the opposite.

Well, yeah, you were. No tag of the base or player, no out, yet the runner is still forced which is why you can even tag the forced runner for an out while in contact with a base. IOW, you must tag either the base or player to effect the force out.

INT with a batted ball, out. Any force is irrelevant.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, yeah, you were. No tag of the base or player, no out, yet the runner is still forced which is why you can even tag the forced runner for an out while in contact with a base. IOW, you must tag either the base or player to effect the force out.

INT with a batted ball, out. Any force is irrelevant.

Which was my point from the beginning - score the run, call R2 out, award BR 1B, end the inning, play ball.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, yeah, you were. No tag of the base or player, no out, yet the runner is still forced which is why you can even tag the forced runner for an out while in contact with a base. IOW, you must tag either the base or player to effect the force out.

INT with a batted ball, out. Any force is irrelevant.

No, I wasn't. As I said, the opposite. If a runner who is tagged off the base is a force (even if not paying attention is the reason he is able to be tagged), so should a runner in a force situation who commits an infraction so to be declared out be considered a force out for scoring of runs, etc.

So, by what you say, with a runner on 3B and 2 outs, any other runner who is forced should be tackling the fielder once R1 crosses home.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No, I wasn't. As I said, the opposite. If a runner who is tagged off the base is a force (even if not paying attention is the reason he is able to be tagged), so should a runner in a force situation who commits an infraction so to be declared out be considered a force out for scoring of runs, etc.

Okay, citations please.

So, by what you say, with a runner on 3B and 2 outs, any other runner who is forced should be tackling the fielder once R1 crosses home.

Where did anyone say such a thing? However, if the run is scored, what possible affect can INT have on that play? If the play takes that long, maybe the defense should have thrown the ball home in an effort to stop the run.

Why is it that so many people feel a need to "protect" one team or the other instead of just administering the rules under which BOTH teams agreed to play?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where did anyone say such a thing? However, if the run is scored, what possible affect can INT have on that play? If the play takes that long, maybe the defense should have thrown the ball home in an effort to stop the run.

If B4 had instead hit the ball over the fence, and R2 missed 2B, what possible difference should that make regarding R1's touch of HP? Yet, we have a rule that says that this is also a force out if appealed, even though no runner or base was tagged with the ball.

And missing a base is a much less benign infraction compared to INT, I would say.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

If B4 had instead hit the ball over the fence, and R2 missed 2B, what possible difference should that make regarding R1's touch of HP? Yet, we have a rule that says that this is also a force out if appealed, even though no runner or base was tagged with the ball.

Not true, there are no missed base appeals in your game

And missing a base is a much less benign infraction compared to INT, I would say.

You caught my shortcoming and failure to be specific. I'm working more along the line of placement of runner(s) debate. ASA has pretty much stayed away from being punitive in nature of their rules, especially INT & OBS. IMO, that is why you may not see the TOP as a return point anytime soo, but you never know.

They have also made a serious effort to make it easier to understand the application and enforcement of the rules for participants and officials alike. Many efforts have been made to keep them as generic and equally applicable across the numerous games, divisions and classes for which ASA is responsible. I think we are straying away from that and, IMO, is not necessarily a good thing for all concerned while it will benefit those with a limited spectrum.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, citations please.

No citation, since I was asserting that is what it SHOULD be.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where did anyone say such a thing?

You did by saying that INT is not a force. Since INT is not a force, it can be used intentionally by the offense to convert what would be a force out into a timing play. And the issue is not "protecting" one team, but rather preventing one team from gaining an advantage by committing an infraction against the other team.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You caught my shortcoming and failure to be specific.

Mike, I've never viewed your posts as having shortcomings.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'm working more along the line of placement of runner(s) debate. ASA has pretty much stayed away from being punitive in nature of their rules, especially INT & OBS. IMO, that is why you may not see the TOP as a return point anytime soo, but you never know.

And my view on the subject has nothing to do with placement of runners, but whether or not this would be a third out as the result of a force out vs. just another out.

Regarding punitive vs. non-punitive rules, well, I can't really side with them on that. I understand that the rules are simply rules, and the vast majority of players out there are not out to cause problems. However, sanitizing the rules of any "punitive" languages is silly. Not everyone out there is a saint, and there must be some understanding that bad behavior results in penalties as prescribed by ASA.

Granted, the sitch I bring up in the OP does not appear, in my opinion, to be one of ill will. Yet making that distinction when the ink meets paper is a daunting task.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

They have also made a serious effort to make it easier to understand the application and enforcement of the rules for participants and officials alike. Many efforts have been made to keep them as generic and equally applicable across the numerous games, divisions and classes for which ASA is responsible. I think we are straying away from that and, IMO, is not necessarily a good thing for all concerned while it will benefit those with a limited spectrum.

Well, that's why we have a rule change committee that meets every year. The game evolves, and so must we.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No citation, since I was asserting that is what it SHOULD be.
You did by saying that INT is not a force. Since INT is not a force, it can be used intentionally by the offense to convert what would be a force out into a timing play. And the issue is not "protecting" one team, but rather preventing one team from gaining an advantage by committing an infraction against the other team.

Dakota, I'm with you on this. (Though, SRW, if I'm calling for you, I'll remember which way you're going to rule if you have to come to my field.) But there are definitely rules where committing an infraction is to your advantage. Besides the ones we've mentioned, here's one from a while back on this board where everyone soundly pounded into my head the ruling. Ball in foul territory (not fly) that is clearly going to bound fair and be fielded for an out. BR should interfere with the fielder while the ball is still in foul ground.
________
Tasty_squirt

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No citation, since I was asserting that is what it SHOULD be.

And here I thought we were talking about what is.

You did by saying that INT is not a force.

I didn't say it, I just quoted the rule book.

Since INT is not a force, it can be used intentionally by the offense to convert what would be a force out into a timing play.

Of course, you are assuming there are players and coaches that smart that can act that quick.

And the issue is not "protecting" one team, but rather preventing one team from gaining an advantage by committing an infraction against the other team.

That was a general comment upon which I stand. Go back over some recent threads and see how often a comment along the lines of "I'm not gonna let xxxxx" do this, take advantage of that or get away with whatever, and all without support of the rules or interpretations.