Runner Interference

[SamNVa]

I'm not sure what the BU thought he was doing, but it appears that he blew this play big time. As far as the interference call goes, that is a HTBT call, but with the SS "lunging" after a misplayed ball, I would have a tendancy NOT to call interference and possibly to call obstruction instead, after all, R1 gave F6 a chance to field the ball and she muffed it. R1 is not required to stand around forever waiting for F6 to secure the ball and tag her out. So, my ruling on the play would have been obstruction on F6, R1 to 3rd, R2 to 2nd and BR to 1st.

Nowm given that we accept the BU's interference as correct, why on earth did he award R2 3rd and the BR 2nd. There is no rule in any book that supports that ruling. You should have endeed up with the BR on 1st and R2 on 2nd, unless the BU ruled that R1 intentionally interfered with F6 in order to break up a double play. om wjocj case you have R1 out, the BR out, and R2 back on 1st, but given the fact that F6 muffed the original ground ball, that scenario is the least likely of the possibilities.

SamC