ASA - No runs will score if....

[Tru_in_Blu]

Well I'll give it a try.

On the IP, we have a delayed DB.

Batter hits the ball, which hits the runner. This results in an immediate DB. Runner is out, runner at third is returned, batter awarded first base.

Since not every runner advanced 1 base and the batter reached first, the coach now has the option of taking the result of the play, or enforcing the penalty for the IP.

Penalty for IP is a ball to the batter, and all runners advanced 1 base.

This would likely be his/her choice in this case.

The fact that the runner was hit by the batted ball is now moot because we've enforced the IP penalty.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Well I'll give it a try.

On the IP, we have a delayed DB.

Batter hits the ball, which hits the runner. This results in an immediate DB. Runner is out, runner at third is returned, batter awarded first base.

Since not every runner advanced 1 base and the batter reached first, the coach now has the option of taking the result of the play, or enforcing the penalty for the IP.

Penalty for IP is a ball to the batter, and all runners advanced 1 base.

This would likely be his/her choice in this case.

The fact that the runner was hit by the batted ball is now moot because we've enforced the IP penalty.

Of course, you are referring to FP since in SP the IP is negated the moment the batter swings at the pitch.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Of course, you are referring to FP since in SP the IP is negated the moment the batter swings at the pitch.

Yes, of course. From the OP, this was my clue:
coach of the offense is given the choice

[LIUmp]

Yes, this is fastpitch.

So do you put the batter back up to bat and add a ball to the count and advance the runners - if the coach decides he wants that option?

Is that an option?

Is the R2 out?

Can any runs score AFTER interference on a runner has been declared?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

Yes, this is fastpitch.

So do you put the batter back up to bat and add a ball to the count and advance the runners - if the coach decides he wants that option?

Is that an option?

Is the R2 out?

Can any runs score AFTER interference on a runner has been declared?

If the run scored before the interference

[LIUmp]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

If the run scored before the interference

But what about AFTER? NY state softball organization I umpire for gives us a test every year and one of the questions last year said AFTER - and they said it can happen. I can't figure out when. Except for the case I wrote about above. So my questions really are:

Can a run score AFTER interference on a runner is declared? If so, how?

What is the correct ruling in the above play?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

But what about AFTER? NY state softball organization I umpire for gives us a test every year and one of the questions last year said AFTER - and they said it can happen. I can't figure out when. Except for the case I wrote about above. So my questions really are:

Can a run score AFTER interference on a runner is declared? If so, how?

What is the correct ruling in the above play?

You have been given the correct ruling on the original play. The offensive coach has the option of the result of the play or to negate the entire play and receive the penalty for the illegal pitch. In "negate the play", that means the interference never happened.

Any coach, even the purest idiots, would take the IP penalty in this case; R1 scores, R2 to 3rd, B4 (has to be 4, because you had an out, right!!) returns to bat with a ball added to the count. Because the result of the play scores no runs and adds an out!!

[youngump]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

Can a run score AFTER interference on a runner is declared? If so, how?

I can't think of anything. Anybody?
________
Colorado Dispensary

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Yes, of course. From the OP, this was my clue:
coach of the offense is given the choice

That was part of his take, not the scenario. AFAIC, his "take" could have been wrong, especially since it was a question.