Interference and force out

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

R2 was out before reaching the base he was forced to attain.

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.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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.

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.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

An out by interference is not a force out. I think ASA is pretty clear on this matter

Got any backup references to this statement?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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.

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.

[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?