greatest interference play i ever heard

[rwest]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Correct, but if the batter-runner is retired before safely reaching 1B, then no runs score if that's the 3rd out.

The only way this would result in the runner scoring is if there are no outs.

However, the OP never said anything about the number of outs. Did it?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by rwest

However, the OP never said anything about the number of outs. Did it?

No, I think a number of us (myself included) assumed there were 2 outs.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by rwest

You don't put the runner back on third. He touched home before the appeal. Score the run, but wait to leave the field to give the defense an opportunity to appeal the runner leaving early.

There was no catch, so the runner leaving early or late is moot.

[andyump]

sorry fellow umps there were no outs and you can not appeal the play, the ball was never caught, glad eeryone is putting in there input

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by andyump

sorry fellow umps there were no outs and you can not appeal the play, the ball was never caught, glad eeryone is putting in there input

Yeah, we kinda needed that information.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

There was no catch, so the runner leaving early or late is moot.

I sit corrected!

[andyump]

so are we all in agreement the runner on 3rd has to score since there are 0 outs and the ball was not caught for a legal appeal ,what can we do as umps but to have our car started and run as fast as we can.

[Tru_in_Blu]

As a creative former player/coach, I'm now even considering if the run would score had there been two outs. Because of the interference by R2, I'm thinking BR is still awarded 1B and credited with a hit.

I recall a play I had last season w/ R1 on third, R2 on second and 2 outs. Batter hits a routine grounder to F6 who fields it cleanly. Had he simply thrown to 1B, the BR would have been retired easily [assuming no muff by F3]. But R2 ran very close to F6, but not past him. For some reason, F6 then decided to take the "easy out" right in front of him by tagging R2. But R2 had baited him and headed back to second base. There was a resulting rundown and R2 was eventually tagged out, but long after R1 had crossed home. So score that run. BR did reach 1B because of the rundown.

Can the same logic be applied to our OP with 2 outs?

If this is such a great play, why don't we ever see it? How has ASA covered their collective bases on this one?

[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).

[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).

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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).

The runner at 2nd interfered before she was put out. This requires the trailing runner to be called out. That would be the BR. Still can't get the runner from third out.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Can someone reference what rule(s) some of you are talking about?

A few posts back, I mentioned a situation I posed at NUS on which KR ruled.

Bases loaded, 1 out. Batter hits a [sky-high, for those that need this] popup near first base. Initial call is IF, batter is out, if fair. The runner from third breaks for home. She touches home before INT occurs. B/R, now potentially retired, if fair, intentionally interferes w/ F3 causing her to not catch the ball, which was in fair territory.

The ruling was INT by a retired B/R. B/R is already out so the runner closest to home is also out. That runner is the one on second base. Score the run. Inning, potentially game, now over.

I think the difference is that in the above case, we have INT by a retired B/R.

Given the same situation and she bunted a [sky-high, for those that need this] popup, which cannot be an IF, and all other things happened the same, do we have 1 out [on the B/R who INT w/ F3], or 2 outs based on rule reference X.X.x?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Can someone reference what rule(s) some of you are talking about?

A few posts back, I mentioned a situation I posed at NUS on which KR ruled.

Bases loaded, 1 out. Batter hits a [sky-high, for those that need this] popup near first base. Initial call is IF, batter is out, if fair. The runner from third breaks for home. She touches home before INT occurs. B/R, now potentially retired, if fair, intentionally interferes w/ F3 causing her to not catch the ball, which was in fair territory.

The ruling was INT by a retired B/R. B/R is already out so the runner closest to home is also out. That runner is the one on second base. Score the run. Inning, potentially game, now over.

I think the difference is that in the above case, we have INT by a retired B/R.

Given the same situation and she bunted a [sky-high, for those that need this] popup, which cannot be an IF, and all other things happened the same, do we have 1 out [on the B/R who INT w/ F3], or 2 outs based on rule reference X.X.x?

I certainly don't have the stature to argue with KR but interference with an infield fly is not interference by a retired batter runner. It's not quite on point but see 8-2-I which would be very inconsistent if the BR was out in this situation.