Interference question - does the run count?

[greymule]

ASA. I would have a hard time calling INT at all if (with R1 across the plate) the BR had actually reached 1B before R2 did whatever he did (grabbed F6's arm, stuck up his hand to block the throw, etc.). If R2 remained near 1B and swatted the throw an instant after the BR touched 1B, that's another story. But I can't see calling INT on R2 unless there's a reasonable excuse for a play somewhere.

On a play in a similar theoretical vein:

R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, 1 out. B3 pops toward 1B. R1 thinks there are 2 outs and crosses the plate. The BR deliberately crashes F3 to prevent a double play.

The ruling is that the BR is out for INT, and R2 (the runner closest to home) is out.

But does R1's run count? (In other words, is the BR the second out and R2 the third, or are both outs simultaneous with the INT? Was the third out the BR before reaching 1B or R2 on a time play?)

Not that they care, but ASA's interp that a runner who crosses the plate before INT occurs on a fly ball is not the runner closest to home has always bothered me.

I don't know about Fed, but in NCAA, any INT before the BR reaches 1B returns all runners TOP.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by greymule

ASA. I would have a hard time calling INT at all if (with R1 across the plate) the BR had actually reached 1B before R2 did whatever he did (grabbed F6's arm, stuck up his hand to block the throw, etc.). If R2 remained near 1B and swatted the throw an instant after the BR touched 1B, that's another story. But I can't see calling INT on R2 unless there's a reasonable excuse for a play somewhere.

Good point.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Good point.

Agreed. I was taking the OP at face value that all criteria of INT had been met, just for the sake of argument.

[Paul L]

ASA's definition of interference {like OBR and Fed baseball, FWIW} requires that the defensive player be attempting a play. The Fed definition omits that element. Does that mean that the ruling when the batter has crossed first before the purported interference would be run scores and batter out under Fed, but no interference at all under ASA?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Let's also caution against going too far the other way. The criteria to be used when judging interference is if the runner hasn't yet reached, not if you think the ball would still beat the runner.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Let's also caution against going too far the other way. The criteria to be used when judging interference is if the runner hasn't yet reached, not if you think the ball would still beat the runner.

Agreed, but if the BR is a lightning-fast runner, the fielder hadn't started the throw yet, and there was absolutely ZERO potential for getting the out (ie., 3 feet shy of the base), then I can't call INT.

But if there's any doubt, then the benefit of the doubt goes in favor of the defense being able to make the play.

[greymule]

I knew that you guys were simply positing that legitimate INT had occurred. I was just sticking my two cents in.

And yes, we should not go too far the other way. Practically anything short of "Why was he trying to make a throw?" should qualify as an "opportunity to make a play on another runner."

Not so. See [NCAA] 12.2.2 to 12.2.5 Effect

You're right. Even though the book [12-18 Interference] says, "If the BR has not touched 1B at the time of the INT, each runner shall return to the base legally occupied at the time of the pitch," there are some TOI cases, such as BR INT by sliding into 1B to interfere with a play on another runner, and BR INT involving the running lane. Strange, though, that those instances of INT are TOI while dropping or throwing the bat onto a fair ball becomes INT TOP. So why state the general rule if there are significant exceptions?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by greymule

I don't know about Fed, but in NCAA, any INT before the BR reaches 1B returns all runners TOP.

Not so. See 12.2.2 to 12.2.5 Effect

[IRISHMAFIA]

This thread became so convoluted so quick, I stopped reading in the middle of the third post.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This thread became so convoluted so quick, I stopped reading in the middle of the third post.

We're umpires. We have short atten...

Oh, look, a monkey!