It's unlikely that a player will know that at that exact moment, interfering with the play is exactly what they should do. However, it's when this happens that I'm sure the defensive coach will come out to wonder why a run was scored when his team's opportunity to get a force out was interfered with.

In researching this situation, I attempted to find the rule that used to say that an umpire should not use a rule that benefits the team at fault, but apparently, it was omitted from the book. I suspect the reasoning behind this would be consistent with Mike's statement about the rules moving away from assigning "penalties" and simply sticking to "effects," not to mention the potential for abuse by overuse of things such as 10-1.

However, in this case, I wish I could find it. We have a number of other rules that prevent the defense from gaining advantages by technicalities, such as intentionally carrying the ball into dead ball territory to prevent further advancement by runners or to prevent them from completing their baserunning responsibilities. In that case, a one-base award becomes a two-base award.

I sincerely doubt that I will ever encounter this kind of play in my lifetime. However, in this one singular instance, I do believe that the offense is not being held to the same, consistent standard to which the defense is also being held: an advantage should not be gained for an act that is contrary to the rules. Maybe ASA will correct it, or maybe it's intentional. Until then, some poor umpire is gonna have a hell of a time explaining to the defensive coach how a runner found a way to avoid being forced out without ever advancing to the base to which they were forced to advance.

If the run does score in this case, that opens a whole new strategy for a squeeze play.

Bases loaded, 2 outs, squeeze for a guaranteed run,

R1 running with the pitch. B4 puts ball in play. R2 and R3 run directectly to the ball and make contact.

Absurd?........... Of course, but.................

I doubt this will become a new strategy. You're counting on a runner on 3B fast enough to get to HP before the INT. Not to mention the fact that the ball would have to be hit far enough that they can't tag R1, but slowly enough that it would give R1 enough time to get to HP.

This kind of scenario is kind of a "perfect storm" that I doubt any of us are likely to see in our lifetime.

It is INT on a fly ball that concerns me most. In my opinion, no runner should advance beyond TOP on INT on a fly ball.

Of course, the still unknown possibility that a run can count when INT (fly ball or not) prevents an obvious third out that otherwise would have nullified the run is also of concern.

R1 on 3B, 1 out. Batter pops high to F3. R1 runs home, BR crashes F3 and is out for INT. That should be a double play for intentional INT to break up a double play, as it is in NCAA and OBR. If R1's run actually counts, then there's a huge hole in ASA rules.

And if on the same play but with 2 outs, R1's run counts, then there's an even "huger" hole. Those high-level SP teams will hit a high pop every time so that the BR can run out and tackle the fielder.

Run counts, guys. That's the rule. You lose, 46-45. Have a nice trip home. Bye!

You better be armed.

Apparently we don't know yet whether INT by a forced runner is considered a force out. If it's not, there's another hole.

If you call for me knowing what I'll say, then why did you call for me? ;)

I'm having a difficult time seeing how allowing the run to score is penalizing the defense (or conversely, rewarding the offense) because of the INT-Out. The only way we get tougher with INT is when it's INT by someone who is already out or not in the game (ODB), then we get the runner closest to home. But even with that situation (ODB INT), we would be allowing the run to score and calling out the runner closest to home... how is that theory any different in the OP? Even after reading a very good debate on this here (well done, guys!), I'm still leaning toward a non-force situation in the OP.

No, because the rule already has the BR covered if there are 2 outs. No runs score, since the rule does not require a force, only that the BR was out prior to reaching 1B.

Because it scores a run that otherwise would not score.

Though I am advocating the rule as written be called as it is written, I agree in principle that there should be no advantage to the offense for violating a given rule.

Which is why I've already laid to paper the first draft of a possible rule change to equally accommodate a runner in the same manner as it is now for the BR when it comes to the scoring a run on the 3rd out of an inning.

So now that we know how to call it under the current rule, how do we fix it for next year in such a way that we don't tilt the table too far in the other direction? :)