What's your call?

[YOCOACH]

Right, just as the runner can interfere *without* sliding. If I judge that the runner deliberately collided with the defender attempting to make a play, then I'm calling an immediate dead ball.

As I've read this scenario, the only real question is whether the offense should be allowed to benefit in this bases-loaded situation. Specifically, if the scoring runner interferes with the catcher's throw AFTER crossing home plate on what would've been the 3rd out of the inning - the force at 1B - does the run come off the board?

No. The infraction occurred after the run was scored and therefore the run would stand. There are no should've been outs in the rulebook. It just covers what is.

Edit to add: If the catcher had just stepped on home plate, the inning would have been done due to a force out before the contact and there would be no controversy.

 

[Greenmonsters]

In the OP, the runner has legally scored prior to the interference. Granted, it seems to be a very small amount of time between the two occurrances, but there is a definite window in there.

Why do some posters want to take the run off the board? The penalty is that the closest runner to home is out, and in this case, the third out and the offense is done for the inning.

If there were no rules violations until after the runner scored, why should the defense get the advantage of the run being taken off the board?

Because, without the interference, the out is made at first and the run doesn't count.

 

[YOCOACH]

Because, without the interference, the out is made at first and the run doesn't count.

How do you know that with 100% certainty? I would think that if there is ample time for R3 to get home, time for the catcher to field the dropped ball and get into a throwing position only to take more time for R3 to smack her arm, then there is also ample time for the batter/baserunner to reach first. Also, how do you know that it would be an accurate throw or that the 1B would not drop the ball given no interference? The rulebook was not designed to deal with "what if" scenarios. It was designed to set forth rules in which the game of softball will be played under and set forth penalties that will be assessed if those rule are not followed. It is not a perfect system of rules but it is the best we have right now.

 

[Greenmonsters]

How do you know that with 100% certainty? I would think that if there is ample time for R3 to get home, time for the catcher to field the dropped ball and get into a throwing position only to take more time for R3 to smack her arm, then there is also ample time for the batter/baserunner to reach first. Also, how do you know that it would be an accurate throw or that the 1B would not drop the ball given no interference? The rulebook was not designed to deal with "what if" scenarios. It was designed to set forth rules in which the game of softball will be played under and set forth penalties that will be assessed if those rule are not followed. It is not a perfect system of rules but it is the best we have right now.

First, and most importantly from a catcher's/catcher's father's perspective (but not the catcher or the father of the catcher involved in this train wreck), it wasn't a dropped third strike/PB - it was a WP ball in the dirt that the hitter should not have swung at! Second, the batter/runner is unaware she should be running to first base and instead is wandering back to the dugout (yes, the hitter is less well coached than the catcher, who should have just stepped on home plate or now have saved a throw by simply tagging the lost batter/runner) so there remains more than ample time to make the throw. Third, you can never know, but in this case the catcher is clearly deprived of AN opportunity to make a legitimate play on the batter runner (not that there aren't or weren't better options that she should have chosen).

A completely exaggerated situation? Absolutely! However, this situation rewards the offending team by allowing them to keep the run and that just doesn't feel right.

 

[YOCOACH]

First, and most importantly from a catcher's/catcher's father's perspective (but not the catcher or the father of the catcher involved in this train wreck), it wasn't a dropped third strike/PB - it was a WP ball in the dirt that the hitter should not have swung at! Second, the batter/runner is unaware she should be running to first base and instead is wandering back to the dugout (yes, the hitter is less well coached than the catcher, who should have just stepped on home plate or now have saved a throw by simply tagging the lost batter/runner) so there remains more than ample time to make the throw. Third, you can never know, but in this case the catcher is clearly deprived of AN opportunity to make a legitimate play on the batter runner (not that there aren't or weren't better options that she should have chosen).

A completely exaggerated situation? Absolutely! However, this situation rewards the offending team by allowing them to keep the run and that just doesn't feel right.

As a catcher's father as well, I completely understand where you are coming from. Is the scenario described by you out of the realm of possibility? NO, because we all know that stranger things can, and do happen in this game. Unfortunately, the rulebook only penalizes what happens as opposed to what could have happened. Maybe if we had an alternate reality machine to show the possibilities....?

 

[MTR]

The umpire cannot call INT, didn't see INT

Sliding is irrelevant to the play/call

Unless the runner on 2nd reached 3B prior to the INT, the run probably shouldn't score if INT was ruled.

8.7.P & 5.5.B.1

 

[GI Tom]

If ASA, my ruling would be based on 8.7.P, I would score the run, call the runner closest to home out, 3rd out, end of inning. Here is 8.7.P exactly: "When after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. EFFECT: The ball is dead, the runner closest to home plate at the time of interference is out. All runners not out must return to last base touched at the time of the interference."

What I don't understand is MTR's citing of rule 5.5.B.1. In that rule it says the batter runner being called out, she was not called out, the runner closest to home was in this particular scenario. Did I miss something MTR?

Rightly or wrongly, I'd score the run and ring up R2.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

What I don't understand is MTR's citing of rule 5.5.B.1. In that rule it says the batter runner being called out, she was not called out, the runner closest to home was in this particular scenario. Did I miss something MTR?

You missed "or any other runner forced out due to the batter becoming a batter-runner." FWIW, this clause seems to be somewhat redundant and/or incomplete considering the definition of a force out.

FORCE OUT: An out which may be made only when the runner loses the right to the base that the runner is occupying because the batter becomes a batter-runner and before the batter-runner or a trailing runner has been put out.

R2 was forced to advance to 3B and MTR says it is a force out if the interference occurred prior to R2 reaching 3B.

 

[canyonjoe]

Just a question to the umpires, if you call r2 out would that not be a force out at 3rd negating the run?

 

[Comp]

Just a question to the umpires, if you call r2 out would that not be a force out at 3rd negating the run?

The interference rules deal with the last base the runners have touched at the time of the interference. If R2 had not yet reached 3rd base at the time R3 interfered with F2, then yes it would be considered a forced 3rd out and the run would not count. But, based on R3 having reached the plate and interfering after scoring it is highly likely R2 also reached 3rd prior to the interference. If so, R2 would no longer be a force out, the run would score and R2 would be called out ending the inning.