Choice of out?

[greymule]

ASA. Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B, one out. Daniels hits a ground ball to F6 and stumbles getting out of the box. F6 throws to F4 at 2B to force Charles. Abel then crosses the plate. F4 tries to throw to 1B to get Daniels, but Charles interferes with F4.

Unlike in baseball, in ASA the runner closest to home at the time of interference (by a runner already put out) is out. Abel had scored, so that means that Baker is out. (In baseball, Daniels would be out.)

Ordinarily, calling the runner closest to home out benefits the defense, but in this case it does not, since with Baker the third out, Abel's run would score. With Daniels the third out at 1B, Abel's run would not count.

Is there any justification for calling Daniels out instead of Baker? What if Daniels was an easy out and Charles's interference was obviously deliberate?

[Gulf Coast Blue]

I would think that you could invoke 8-8-j and declare the interference intentional and call the immediate succeding runner out which would nullify the run.............

But I would be wary of making up a call on the spot to help the defence out in this play.........

In your scenerio..........R1 from 3rd scored before the interference (unintentional)..........so some may think they deserved that run..........and a rules savy coach might just catch you in a quandry...........

Call it by the book................

Intentional...........No run..........

Unintentional........Score that run........

JMHO

Joel

[Tap]

The scenario was "Charles interferes with F4." This occurred after Charles was put out.

Did Charles barrel into F4, prevent F4 from getting off a good throw, or get in the way of the throw well after F4 made it (and if the latter, was it intentional)? If Charles did not prevent F4 from making his normal throw and was merely hit by the throw and it was accidental, no interference -- run scores and there are 2 outs. Next batter up. Play ball. ASA Rule 8-8-J.

If Chalres crashed into F4 and prevented him from getting a good throw off (even if accidental) or if Charles intentionally interfered with the throw (e.g. F4 got off a perfect throw and it hit Charles halfway between 1B and 2B), we have interference. We can sometimes infer intent to interfere with a thrown ball based on circumstances, but sometimes we cannot so infer. For the sake of this question, assume that it was interference as defined by the rules and was an obvious attempt to break up a double play.

I think there is some clause in the ASA rules stating that a given rule shall not be applied in an over-technical manner to benefit the team that violates the rule. I think this is a perfect example. I would invoke that rule and call the batter-runner out for the 3rd out. I don't think anyone would have grounds to complain.

[It also seems unlikely that Abel would have scored before the interference, but he might have been very fast -- and it makes for a great discussion anyway.]

[Dakota]

8-8-J only applies to the runner before he has been put out. 8-8-J(4) states that directly.

Unfortunately, 8-8-P is the only rule that can be applied, IMO. And it only applies if the interference was intentional. Although I would guess that the change in which runner is out between 8-8-J and 8-8-P is intended to be a more severe penalty against the defense, in this case it is a benefit.

But, thems the rules.

I thought about 10-1-L, but that doesn't fit either, since you don't want to not invoke the penalty, you want to substitute a more severe penalty.

Can't do it.