greatest interference play i ever heard

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

No, because in all rule codes (NFHS, ASA, NCAA) of a routine (fair) fly, both the runner and batter are out, or in the case of 2 out, the batter has finished her turn at bat but did not reach first, and no run can score if the BR does not reach first.

No run shall be scored if the THIRD out of the inning is the result of....

A batter runner being called out prior to reaching first base.

This was not the third out but the fourth out in the scenario where there was 2 outs. The third out was the interference.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by rwest

No run shall be scored if the THIRD out of the inning is the result of....

A batter runner being called out prior to reaching first base.

This was not the third out but the fourth out in the scenario where there was 2 outs. The third out was the interference.

Suppose we don't have the runner at third (so not as to ask about run scoring). Who will lead off the next inning? Not the BR, because that at bat is finished, over, kaput, ended, "all" (Central PA phrasing). Therefore the BR did not reach first base, and therefore no runs can score.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Suppose we don't have the runner at third (so not as to ask about run scoring). Who will lead off the next inning? Not the BR, because that at bat is finished, over, kaput, ended, "all" (Central PA phrasing). Therefore the BR did not reach first base, and therefore no runs can score.

OK, suppose there is not runner at third. If there is INT by [now] R1 on the SS, that is the third out, and, yes, I believe BR is awarded 1B and credited with a hit.

Unless there's a rule reference I can check once I have my book in front of me...

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Suppose we don't have the runner at third (so not as to ask about run scoring). Who will lead off the next inning? Not the BR, because that at bat is finished, over, kaput, ended, "all" (Central PA phrasing). Therefore the BR did not reach first base, and therefore no runs can score.

I would love to be able to use the logic you have purposed. However, there's no support for it in the rule book. The third out was not the batter-runner. And I don't believe you are correct about who will bat next inning. There is no justification for a fourth out here. The third out ended the inning. That was the interference. The batter-runner's at bat never ended because she was never put out. You can't get 4 outs in an inning except on missing or leaving a base early and then only when it applies to a runner who scored.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

OK, suppose there is not runner at third. If there is INT by [now] R1 on the SS, that is the third out, and, yes, I believe BR is awarded 1B and credited with a hit.

Unless there's a rule reference I can check once I have my book in front of me...

If the BR is credited with a hit, then I can see the batters at bat coming to a completion.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

OK, suppose there is not runner at third. If there is INT by [now] R1 on the SS, that is the third out, and, yes, I believe BR is awarded 1B and credited with a hit.

Unless there's a rule reference I can check once I have my book in front of me...

Not if it is a fly ball, both would be out, being if the ball is fair (in ASA, if the ball is fair or foul). On a ground ball, yes, the BR is credited with a Fielder's choice in ASA, FC or hit in NCAA (but I really don't care, I don't score). However, the OP would not happen on a grounder, unless a) the runner was stealing and b) the ball was a slow roller.

Therefore, in the OP, if no outs, it seems the run would score (would need to be a sky high pop up) and a runner leaving way early. With one or two outs, there is no issue.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

...And I don't believe you are correct about who will bat next inning. There is no justification for a fourth out here. The third out ended the inning. That was the interference. The batter-runner's at bat never ended because she was never put out.

The at-bat is completed because the batter became a BR. Doesn't matter what happens after that on the play, she is not batting again. She put the ball in play, and that play resulted in the 3rd out. Her at bat is done.

Originally Posted by rwest

...and then only when it applies to a runner who scored.

That quirky ruling only applies to ASA.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The at-bat is completed because the batter became a BR. Doesn't matter what happens after that on the play, she is not batting again. She put the ball in play, and that play resulted in the 3rd out. Her at bat is done.That quirky ruling only applies to ASA.

I'm sold on her at bat ending, but not on the negating of the run with 2 outs. The third out of the inning was not the BR being put out before reaching 1st.

[Dakota]

BTW, which rule set are we discussing here? Any? All? Some? One?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

BTW, which rule set are we discussing here? Any? All? Some? One?

I don't believe the OP stated which rule set.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by andyump

interference happened after the runner crossed home

Cool... I have TWO outs, then ... and not 1. The interference prevented an easy double play (catch, throw to third).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Suppose we don't have the runner at third (so not as to ask about run scoring). Who will lead off the next inning? Not the BR, because that at bat is finished, over, kaput, ended, "all" (Central PA phrasing). Therefore the BR did not reach first base, and therefore no runs can score.

I think this is more than Central PA phrasing........but the rule specifically notes the BR or another runner forced being retired for the 3rd out of the inning. Nowhere does it state that the BR not reaching 1B safely nullifies a run not even in RS #43.

However, many of you may be confused by a previous interpretation that when the defense executes two outs with two outs already in the book, that the defense could basically elect which out would be the third out for the purpose of nullifying a run. This was the same time when a fourth out appeal could be executed on a BR/R who did not score to nullify a run. Remember, though, these were interpretations, not necessarily black and white rules. Well, except for the fourth out appeal thingy.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I think this is more than Central PA phrasing........but the rule specifically notes the BR or another runner forced being retired for the 3rd out of the inning. Nowhere does it state that the BR not reaching 1B safely nullifies a run not even in RS #43.

However, many of you may be confused by a previous interpretation that when the defense executes two outs with two outs already in the book, that the defense could basically elect which out would be the third out for the purpose of nullifying a run. This was the same time when a fourth out appeal could be executed on a BR/R who did not score to nullify a run. Remember, though, these were interpretations, not necessarily black and white rules. Well, except for the fourth out appeal thingy.

So, what is your ruling? Would the run count if there were two outs in the book?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Cool... I have TWO outs, then ... and not 1. The interference prevented an easy double play (catch, throw to third).

You're assuming that the ball would have been caught. You can't assume that. The only other out you can get is the BR.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

You're assuming that the ball would have been caught. You can't assume that. The only other out you can get is the BR.

What rules basis do you have for saying you can't assume that? The more "normal" 2-out interference is with a runner committing intentional interference to break up a double play - you "assume" that the 2nd out would have been made in that case... why is this play any different? The rules simply say the Umpire is to rule a 2nd out as well if in his judgement the interference prevented a double play. This sitch is no different (and is also supported by the common sense idea that the offense should not benefit from interference).