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...

But covered by the same rule.
As I said, two quotes from the same rule.And it is certainly not at all impossible, or even improbable, that ASA would agree with you. They've done sillier things. It just seems to me that both runners (R2 in the OP and BR in my version) are out under the same rule and should be treated the same and that committing INT should not be a means of converting a force situation into a timing play.

Yep, they sure did.

I didn't know we couldn't offer our opinion if it agreed with one already stated! :eek:

Yes, but no. BR out is rule 7, R out is rule 8. Both covered in "run does not score" rule 5.

I know I could argue both ways, I'm just siding with the timing play on this more than the force out. I don't see how it's written in any part that this could be a force. It's INT, plain as day... and I don't recall ever seeing anything where a form of INT on a R constitutes (or could constitute) a F/O.

I was referring to rule 5, since that is the crux of the discussion (does the run score, not whether the runner is out).

If the interference rule trumps the force situation, how about this:

R1 on 3B. R2 on 1B. 2 outs. Squeeze play on, but the bunt is a bit vigorous and makes it to F4, who picks up the ball and is preparing to tag R2. R2 slaps F4's arm, knocking the ball out of F4's hand, but after R1 has crossed home.

INT and run scores? Make this a tie score and the bottom of the 7th and, oh boy, we're havin' fun now!

After reading all of the post so far in this thread, I have trouble scoring the run in this situation.

1) When B4 became a B/R, R2 was forced to move to 2B. R2 was out before reaching 2B. Therefore, R3 does not score.

2) I cannot think that the rules would allow the offense to score a run by committing interference.

3) R2 is an idiot.

MTD, Sr.



P.S. Immediately after submitting this post, I discussed the play with MTD, Jr., and he asked the following question: If R2's interference caused an infielder from making a play on the B/R at 1B, could the umpires unilaterally impose an advantageous fourth (4th) out?

You can always express agreement with me. :p :D :D

I was just reinforcing my position which was so far back and so brief I felt ignored. ;) :D :D

Along with that, we can all make useless posts like this one by me. :cool:

I cannot think that the rules would allow the offense to score a run by committing interference.

It can happen in ASA, even with deliberate INT.

If R2's interference caused an infielder from making a play on the B/R at 1B, could the umpires unilaterally impose an advantageous fourth (4th) out?

Not in ASA on a runner who didn't score.

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.

Hmmmmmmmm
 

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

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.

great posts
 

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 :eek:

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.

Got any backup references to this statement?

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. :p

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?

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.

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.

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. :D 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.

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.

Okay, citations please.

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?

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.

Not true, there are no missed base appeals in your game :D

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.

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.

Mike, I've never viewed your posts as having shortcomings. :)

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.

Well, that's why we have a rule change committee that meets every year. The game evolves, and so must we. :)

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

And here I thought we were talking about what is. :rolleyes:

I didn't say it, I just quoted the rule book.

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

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.

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? :)