Interference and force out
 

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.

Hmmmmm
 

You changed it up...seems a little bit different than the previous one I read. lol

Most details are the same. Just eliminating some questionables. :)

venture into the pond
 

ill take a stab at this...with all due respect to the poster...this has to do with the run counting???...I have interference run counts...but Im interested to see if this qualifies as a force out...:cool:

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

Well, let's break this down...

Okay... So force out?

He was forced to leave the base, but an out from an act of INT can happen at any time, not just when they're forced.

Anything in the RS?

Still no mention of INT.

Again, common sense tells me that this would be a force out, because they were put out prior to reaching the base they were forced to advance. However, the way in which they were put out has little to nothing to do at all with being forced to advance.

Crap, am I looking at this too much from a coach's perspective?

key word is tagging
 

rs#21...key to this rule would be tagging...the intent seems to show me a fielder who can either tag a runner or touch the base...one other thing wouldnt int have presidence over force out ?

My instinct would be that R2's out is a force, and thus R1's run is nullified. But many ASA rulings are counterintuitive. Maybe R2's out is just a generic out, not a force out.

Governing all INT with TOI can create strange situations.

R1 on 3B, no outs. Batter hits a high popup to F3. R1 crosses the plate. BR rounds 1B, collides with F3, and is called out for INT. As far as I can tell, R1's run would count. (Somebody please point out why I'm wrong. I'll sleep better.) The question in the OP makes me wonder whether it would count even if the play began with 2 outs.

Hmm.
8.1.E.4.

Logically, BR gets 1B. R1 is out, R2 returns to last base touched at time of INT (which would be HP)

8.6.E says return runners to the last base at the time of INT.

I can't get from INT to F/O in this... it has all the makings of a timing play to me.

So, if it was the BR who picked up the assumed to be foul ball, you'd still rule the run scores (INT trumps)?

I will side with SRW on this one.

Because of the rulilng that baserunners are returned to the last base achieved at the time of the interference, I'm counting the run.

Tom - your wrinkle provides the need for added thought.

If the Interference rule trumps the force out, then the offense is benefiting by interfering. That part, alone, doesn't seem right (although it is hardly the only example of this kind of thing in ASA interpretations, right greymule?)

I'll go with treating this as a force out, since the runner was out before reaching the next base he was forced to when the batter became a better-runner.

Yeah, the Rules Supplement does say that a force out can be made by either tagging the runner or the base, but that is just to clarify that either of those two are treated equally- probably because most players think that a force out can only be made by tagging a base.

The R/S is full of examples where they clarify a couple of points while ignoring many other possibilities. For example, look at the R/S for interference. It says that, "Runner interference includes...", then lists five different examples. Now, there are more ways that a runner can interfere than the five listed, but the R/S isn't intended to be all-inclusive. It is simply clarifying the plays that are commonly confused, not listing every possible way that a runner can interfere.

And yet, I have had folks trot out the R/S for interference and try to tell me that those are the only ways a runner can be guilty of interference. They are picking a small section of the rule book- that isn't even an actual playing rule!- and making a blanket assumption that negates the actual playing rules.

Since we are discussing a runner interfering with a batted ball that has not yet touched or passed a fielder, how about this literal interpretation of the rule: 8-7-K says that a runner is out if struck by the batted ball.

The runner in question here was not struck by the ball- he reached over an picked it up. Is there some exception made when the ball contacts the runner versus the runner contacting the ball, much the same as when a batter discards his bat and bat hits ball or ball hits bat?

Of course there isn't. It's still interference, he's still out and I'm going to say it's still treated as a force out. No run scores!

Someone said earlier:
"R2 was out before reaching the base he was forced to attain. "

That's a different scenario.

In the OP, R2 wasn't "forced out due to the batter becoming a batter-runner", they were declared out on INT. In your sitch, the BR was "called out prior to reaching first base."

I think I'm still holding a timing play in the OP...