Interference and force out

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[SRW]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

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

[SRW]

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.

[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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

[robbie]

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.................