Is there a hole in 8-7-J
 

Situation:

Bases loaded. R1 on 3rd; R2 on 2nd; R3 on 1st. B4 hits a ground ball to F4. R3 intentionally interferes with F4 and in the opinion of the umpire was done to prevent a double play.

Based on 8-7-J the umpire is supposed to rule the trailing runner out. However, we don't have a trailing runner, we have a trailing batter-runner. So you can't use 8-7-J to get B4 out. Not if we are literally interpreting the word "runner" as defined in rule 1.

I don't believe we can use 8-2-K if we don't believe they are attempting to "complete the play on the batter-runner". In this case if F4 appears to be going home for the force out, 8-2-K doesn't apply.

So is there a hole in 8-7-J? Can we get two outs on this play and if so, what rule are you using?

How did R3 interfere? Was R3 already out at the time of the INT? This is important as that would take the BR out of the equation.

If you want to be technical, B4 becomes a runner the moment you kill the ball on the INT call. You cannot send the BR back to the B position, so you must award the BR 1B which, by rule definition, makes that player a runner.

If you don't believe part of the play included completing a play on the BR, than I don't believe you can apply 8.7.J.Effect.

No and yes. See above.

True but
 

True. In this scenario R3 was not out on the interference.

Based on what rule or definition? By definition the batter-runner stay a batter-runner until they reach first base, at which time they become a runner, or they have been retired. It is true you can't send the BR back to the batter position, but that is not our only option. Whenever we have interference and the BR is not called out we place them on 1st base. So we don't have to send them back to bat.

I don't agree. The rule says a double play not a play on the BR. The defense could be trying to turn a 4-2-5 double play. We can't assume that the double play includes a play at 1st. I would agree if you said we could not apply 8-2-K if no play at 1st was anticipated. This rule clearly stays "an attempt to complete the play on the batter-runner". What makes 8-7-J Effect not applicable is that the only additional out we can get is the trailing runner. The BR has not become a runner at this time, so we can't get them out. And since the BR is not a runner, there is no trailing runner. So 8-7-J Effect doesn't apply.

So, they way I see it, if R3, prior to being declared out, interferes with F4 and there was no play on the BR at 1b, then we can only get 1 out. 8-2-K does not apply because there was no attempt to complete the play on the batter runner. 8-7-J Effect does not apply because the BR is not a Runner.

I definitely see a hole in the rule. Maybe that's not the intent, but by the strictest definition of the terms runner and batter-runner and then applying those terms to rules 8-2-K and 8-7-J Effect, we definitely can't get two outs on the offered play.

Once you kill the ball on the INT call, that places the BR on 1B, that player becomes a runner. Read Rule 1.

But you can assume an unlikely attempt at a double play on the opposite side of the diamond? From F4? Okay, granted that could be a possibility, but I would contend that the umpire has really got to have a TWP-like imagination to even consider it without additional known quantifiers.

Ah, yeah, that is sort of the point of the rule. The 2nd out is NOT automatic. There has to be a probable play to call the out.

Disagree.

Ex Post Facto Officiating
 

No, once you kill the play the BR does not instantly become a Runner. You have to then enforce the penalty. It is now at this point you enforce 8-7-J. Part of the penalty for interference is placing the BR on 1st base if they are not declared out. That is part of the entire penalty. You can't put them on first base as part of the first enforcement of the penalty then further enforce the penalty a second time and then declare the BR, now a runner, out. It is the BR status at the time of the interference that is important. There is no rule in section 1 that makes the BR a Runner instantaneously on the interference call. It is our enforcement of the penalty that causes them to be designated a runner when we put them on 1st. When we kill the play they are still a BR.

It doesn't require a TWP. R1 on 3rd could be the winning run and with no outs F4 is definitely going home with the throw. As the play develops it may be that 3rd is the next best play to make. Slower runner on 2nd for one example. I agree 1st is the logical next play in many double play scenarios, but as you admitted it is a possibilty. I just don't believe it is a TWP.

Randall, let me give you a way to look at this, as well as other similar situations, which might help you grasp the nuance you are struggling with.

You need to consider a batter-runner as a subset of runners. While there are specific situations that apply only to batter-runners, all rules that apply to runners ALSO apply to batter-runners. Now, if you can accept that as a possibility, your challenge now is to disprove that theory; find any rule that contradicts that subset theory, or any rule that applies to runners that doesn't also apply to batter-runners.

Consider that you would apply "runner" interference to a batter-runner, running out of the base path, other issues defined only to runners, and you also apply missing a base (first) in the same way, even though there are not identical and mirroring rules in each and every instance.

If you get to that point, you can apply the rules you now consider to have holes equally.

the "hole" in your OP references ASA, but a small phrase in the 2010 NHFS case book might help explain away the hole, and provide some closure. it reads on p.65, situation 8.8.16, "R1 (or any runner) is permitted to complete her base-running responsibilities before a dead-ball appeal can be made."

You can look at it this way, if BR doesn't reach 1B, she can still be out, say for abandonment. if she reaches 1B even after the ball is called dead, she is "permitted to complete her run" to 1B, making her safe at 1B, and is a runner thereafter. you can consider this an awarded base, as in NHFS case book situation 8.5.3 (p.60). this is consistent w/ the 2010 NHFS rulebook 5-2a and 5-2c, as this is an award that still has to be completed legally like any other awarded base.

but this doesn't fix the ASA hole, since there is no similar language I can find in ASA materials.

ASA 8-5-G EXCEPTION 1; RS 1-C-1,2, -D note.

No can do!
 

This is not a delayed dead ball nor is it an awarded base. On interference it is an immediate dead ball and nothing can happen after that. The only thing that makes the BR a Runner is our enforcement of the penalty for interference. Any time we call interference and we don't also call the BR out then we put them on 1st base.

I don't have my Fed rule books with me because in Georgia, we call in the Fall. My FED season has been over for several months.

Again, not applicable
 

We can't apply the appeal or awarded bases rules to this scenario. This is an immediate dead ball. The BR could miss 1st on her way to 2nd and the defense could not appeal her missing 1st. We've killed the play long before the runner missed 1st. It never happened.

If you notice, I was only responding to shag's comment about an ASA reference similar to his Fed reference.

Yep, got it!
 

Sorry about that!

the batter-runner doesn't reach first base when dead-ball is called in your OP. I didn't find anything in asa materials that says the batter-runner is AWARDED first base on the immediate dead-ball on the INT call, but I did find it in NHFS case book situation 8.5.3 (p.60).

I was looking for some supplement to close the rules "hole" posted in your OP. allowing "runners" to finish their running responsibilities could close that hole, which dakota (tom) did find in the asa rules supplement to the same effect.

Underneath 8-7-L:
I do not view this as a loophole. The rule does not say that it has to be a double play on a runner, only that it's an attempt to break up a double play. Since the BR is awarded 1B as per the quoted note above, they are now a runner, and are subject to the prescribed penalty.

For the record, I haven't been paying 100% attention to this thread. I think we're looking for a loophole that just isn't there.

This is a stretch. If we take a rule that talks about something happening to a runner who has already scored you wouldn't apply that to a runner who was awarded home since he will be a runner who has already scored once he takes the award.
It's a much shorter path to the right answer to go Steve's way in my mind. The B-R is a special kind of runner and this rule just isn't precise in who it mentions because the situation where it would need to be is so obscure.

;-) Besides if you aren't going to call him out until he's a runner, you have to award the BR 1st, watch him walk down and then call him out when he gets there which is just asking for trouble ;-)
________
VAPORIZER WIKI

True... I posted this before reading Steve's explanation. Much better way of putting it.

They're still looking for something that isn't there. :)

yeah, the loophole is there as explicitly written, so OP raises a valid point, which is really just a language issue.

mike is saying BR is awarded 1B regardless. so it doesn't matter, since it makes BR the a runner when placed on 1B by default.

steve is saying, the BR is a runner also in a sense, so BR doesn't need to ever reach 1B to be the second out.

I was suggesting another possible way to look at it, that BR reaches 1B after dead ball call because she is allowed to finish running responsibilities first before enforcement of the INT double play breakup. by doing so, I'm suggesting this might close up the language because it makes BR a runner if she reaches 1B safely. I can't see this being an issue in real play, unless BR pulls something silly like goto the dugout first. I guess anything can happen.

You can't do that...
 

If you enforce the penalty for interference and award the BR 1st base, you can't then call them out on a subsequent application of the penalty. That's similar to an Ex Post Facto law, in which you punish some one for a past activity that is now a crime but wasn't when it was performed. Once we enforce the penalty for interference and place BR on 1st, we are done. We can't go any further.

We can't use the awarded bases rule either. The rules stating that we must allow the runners to complete their base running responsibilities are in regard to missed base or base left early. We allow them to correct their mistake BEFORE awarding the bases. There is no mistake in this case to correct. We are awarding 1st because of the interference. There is nothing we are required to allow the runner to do before we award them 1st base.

I'm leaning toward Steve's method. I'd word it differently though. I'd just say the intent of the rule does not preclude getting the BR out. The black and white written word may, but not the intent.

Be careful with how far you go with using the "intent" of a rule. While I do agree with you that we should call the BR out in this sitch, there are times when some umpires stretch rules to match what they believe their intent is. ASA has gotten more and more strict with letter-of-the-law interpretations, as they can often be our only salvation.

When there's no room left for interpretation in the application of the rules, we, as umpires, stand on firmer ground.

yes, I'm not thrilled about the use of "award", used by mike and used by NHFS as well (note the edit), but absent from asa rules as far as I could find.

(edit) ** actually, the "award" in the NHFS casebook 8.5.3 (p60) is awarding BR B1, but is not the trailing runner **

what I suggested was simply another way to look at the same thing we all do, declare the BR out on the turn of a INT double play broken-up. allowing the BR to finish her running responsibilities allows BR to reach 1B legally, NOT AWARDED, only then to be ruled out for a double play breakup as the trailing "runner". that way, we can get around the quandary of "double jeopardy". it's not the way I look at it, it's just something I offered to help close your hole. to be honest, I never knew there was a hole till you pointed it out.

what we (I) are explaining is not what we all do normally, but the flaw or lack of in the way the rule applied as written. but whatever rationale you prefer really doesn't matter, it's all handled the same way, at least that's mike's rationale anyways.

I agree, however....
 

Being a letter-of-the-law umpire can also get you into trouble. Years ago ASA had a problem with the wording of the D3K rule. I can't remember the exact format, but one way to interpret the rule as it was written then would have prohibited the Batter from becoming a Batter Runner with 2 outs in a given scenario. Maybe it was with a runner on 1st. I can't remember the exact scenario. Regardless, the wording was misleading at best. We all know that with 2 outs the Batter becomes a Batter Runner on the D3K. That was the intent but that's not how it was worded.

We need to know the intent of the rules to accurately enforce them. The rule book should convey the intenct but sometimes the intent is not as clear as in other cases. This is not meant as harsh criticism on the writers of the rule book. We've all written something that didn't clearly convey our meaning. Often times what we write is clear to us because we know what we meant. However, the reader might misinterpret it.

That's why we have rules supplements, case plays and clarifications on the ASA website.

Plus that annual meeting held in November. ;)

My only caution was that there are some umpires who, completely on their own and without guidance, look too deep for the "intent of the rule." Sometimes, the intent is readily apparent. Other times, it's not.

And for the record, no, I wasn't implying that rwest was "searching for intent." My words were simply meant to be a general statement.

My respect to rwest. :)

It wasn't THAT long ago and it took two years to get it changed onced discovered (the NUS addressed it, but forgot to make the change). Never saw Bob S. so upset as when I asked him how it was that change wasn't made. :eek:

The wording was the B becomes a BR when the catcher fails to catch the third strike before the ball touches the ground and there are (1) fewer than two outs and first base is not occupied at the time of the pitch, or (2) there are two outs and first base is occupied.

Obviously, this wording does not account for two outs and first base being empty. The change was made to the present wording. That change was initiated due to a post on one of these boards, maybe this one.

However, to make Dave's point, we all knew the proper application through case plays and rules clinics.

I agree
 

I brought it up to support my view that we need to know the intent behind the rule and that sometimes the rule book doesn't clearly define the intent. This is obviously a extreme example in that there was a blatant error. However, the same philosophy applies when the error is not so blatant.