ASA Batter-Runner INT
 

Runners on 1B & 2B. B3 hits a hard, one-hopper back at the pitcher. Ball comes off the pitcher's knee and rebounds quickly to the catcher. BR3 never moves, so catcher has a chance to turn a double play attempts a force at 3B.

As the ball is released, the BR throws hands up in disgust and hits deflects the thrown ball into the dugout.

What is your ruling?

I have dead ball, int, BR out, runners return to B1 and B2

Re: Batter-Runner INT
 

I agree with the previous post, although ASA Rules Section 8 Rule 2(F) gives the Umpire some discretion to call the runner closest to home out also, if he/she determines that the INT was an attempt to prevent the double play. With the catcher not tagging the Batter-Runner at the plate, I lean more toward the attempted double play scenario and would not hesitate to call the lead runner out also. It was most likely one of those that I would have to see to call.

There's always something to Mike's apparently simple rule questions. He doesn't just post the easy ones.

I think he's getting at the point that the BR never moved. Hence the BR is still in the batter's box.

Therefore, 8.2.F.3 wouldn't apply because the BR didn't "interfere with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box"

8.2.F.2 wouldn't apply, because the BR didn't "interfere with the fielder attempting to throw the ball." the ball had already been thrown.

8.2.F.1 wouldn't apply because once it hit F1, it's no longer a batted ball.

Sounds like we have no way to call an out on the BR for interfering with a thrown ball while inside the box, intentional or not.

Soooooo...

Bad throw catcher, dead ball out of play, award B1 Home, B2 goes to 3B, and BR3 to 2B.

Now is that what I'm gonna call on the field? Absolutely not... but I think that's what Mike is geting at - the literal interpretation of the rule.

Personally, I would apply 8.7-J(3); because, as I stated in the other related thread, the batter-runner is a subset of runners, and all rules applying to runners also apply to batter-runners (unless a specific rule applying only to batter-runners contradicts).

I would have a difficult time with the (3) EFFECT double play, because on this play there is no immediately trailing runner. By the OP, since this wasn't an attempt to break up the double play (throws hands up in disgust), I would apply the (1-2, 4) EFFECT that rules interference, dead ball, all others return.

If it were clearly an attempt to prevent the double play, I'm getting the lead runner, as well as the batter-runner; and challenge the OC (and UIC, if necessary) to find a rule that says I can't call R1 the trailing runner which play was interfered with!!

But how can you do that when 8.2.F specifically excludes such a ruling? ;)

I don't see any specific exclusion. In each case under 8.2.F, they do not specifically apply. If the case applied, then you would need to apply that rule. Since none specifically applies (none relates to a batter-runner still in the box who interferes with a throw), then it is not specifically excluded.

If we look at the definition of interference, and absent any specific exclusion from the interference rule, we must rule this as interference, It is absolutely 1) an act (throwing hands up) by 2) an offensive player (batter-runner) that 3) impedes or hinders (blocking the throw accomplishes that) a 4) defensive player (F2 made the throw) attempting to execute 5) a play (attempting a makeable force out at third base). There are no exceptions that I can find that apply to this play, there is simply not an explicit ruling under 8.2-F. To not rule this interference would be clearly wrong, IMO.

While this might be considered a hole in rule 8.2-F, 8.7-J(3) does allow a ruling that can be supported; I would use it, and doubt it wouldn't be supported by the NUS if protested or challenged at that level.

THE BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.
F. When the batter-runner interferes with
3. a thrown ball while outside of the batter's box.

Since there is no alternative offered, that sounds pretty exclusive to anything other than the BR within the confines of the BB. If it wasn't meant to be exclusive, why is the BB even included in the rule?

How many times have we said a definition in itself is not a rule? It is a quantifier to be used i the application of a rule.

Couldn't agree more.

Yeppers