Interference and force out

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Sitch: R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B, 2 outs. B4 hits a dribbler that touches the top of 1B. R2, thinking it's a foul ball, trots back to the ball, picks it up and tosses it to F3. The ball did not pass any infielder, nor was it touched by any infielder. R2 was not in contact with 1B when he picked up the ball. R1 had crossed the plate before R2 touched the ball.

There's no doubt that R2 is out. The question is: is this considered a force out? My instinct tells me, "no sh1t, Dave, do you even need to ask? Of course it is!" Yet something is nagging me in the back of my mind on this one.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DeputyUICHousto

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. I would have to think that you cannot just presume a passing based upon relative position to a base.

[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.

[cloverdale]

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

[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.