Interference question - does the run count?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by shagpal

andy, your OP describes a double play interference and the penalty is that both runners (R2 and BR) are forced out per NFHS rulebook (PENALTY articles 10-14, page 66). since batter started off w/ 1 out already, the 2 outs from the double play force plays means no runs can score. this is not a timing play, no runs can score when an inning ends by force. when R1 crosses the plate is moot.

(added) ops! I didn't see last part, but it is extremely unlikely that a BR could reach 1B before the interference would occur, but given your OP scenario that both R1 crossed the plate and BR reaches first to become R3 BEFORE the interference, the closest runner to home after R2 is put out, would be the BR turned R3. because the BR reached 1B before the interference, the force is off, and it does become a timing play, so I would say R1 scores if both R1 crosses the plate, and BR reaches first before the interference.

Re-read that which you again cited without quoting. No, not everyone has the new rulebook at this point; even citing the proper rule would help. Four states won't play NFHS Softball until the fall, so the 2010 Rulebooks will be made available in about 5 months. Looking at my most recent rulebook, not on page 66 that year, however, Rule 8-2 (10-14 PENALTY):

Originally Posted by NFHS Rulebook

If this interference, in the judgment of the umpire, is an obvious attempt to break up a double play AND OCCURS BEFORE THE RUNNER IS PUT OUT, the immediate(ly) succeeding runner shall also be called out.

Originally Posted by Original post by Andy

Ground ball to SS, throws to second for out #2
Retired R2 intentionally interfers with throw to first.

Since R2 was already out when interfering, the proper rule is 8-6-18, interference by a retired runner; Penalty states ball is dead and the runner closest to home at the time of the interference shall be declared out.

Your citation of 8-6 (10-14) Penalty applies only when a runner that is NOT already retired interferes with the front end of an obvious double play. Not in this post.