Runner Steals home - Whats the call

[MTR]

The prohibition against interfering with a live ball applies to all offensive players.

Never stated they were not.

 

[Ajaywill]

What I see here is a runner that has scored contacting a fair batted ball.

If there is a potential play to be made, an interference call may be applicable, but the runner closest to home would be declared out. If no play is available, I would agree with a blocked ball call and B/R awarded first base.

Yes, I realize that letting a batted ball roll foul is a valid defensive strategy, but there is no way I could see calling this a foul ball because that is "most likely" what would have happened had the ball not contacted the scored runner.

 

[Greenmonsters]

What I see here is a runner that has scored contacting a fair batted ball.

If there is a potential play to be made, an interference call may be applicable, but the runner closest to home would be declared out. If no play is available, I would agree with a blocked ball call and B/R awarded first base.

Yes, I realize that letting a batted ball roll foul is a valid defensive strategy, but there is no way I could see calling this a foul ball because that is "most likely" what would have happened had the ball not contacted the scored runner.

Here's another way to think of it. Once a runner has scored from third, its a run and she's no longer a baserunner, correct? That makes her simply a member of the offensive team, right? What's the penalty for an offensive player (who isn't a base runner, batter, or ODB) for interfering with a batted ball?

 

[Crabby_Bob]

My comment, "It's legitimate defensive strategy to allow a batted ball to roll foul." is not to be construed as advocating "foul ball" as the correct call, rather, an offensive player has done something to interfere with a live batted ball, particularly one that is still in the infield and has not passed an infielder. The rules don't cover this situation perfectly.

PS. The ODB is restricted to the ODC but there is no prescribed penalty for leaving it. Furthermore, she (the ODB) may not interfere with a defensive player's opportunity to make an out.

 

[Greenmonsters]

You have one on me, cant say I have ever seen a case play covering this situation. Will ask on an umpires board and see what they have to say. There are several issues to deal with because technically the runner has already scored prior to any possible contact with a live batted ball.

Any consensus other than "it was a good thing it didn't happen in my game"?

 

[Momo'sDad]

I'm waiting for AJ, Comp, MTR, Brettman etc to opine, but I don't think so. Absent the runner sliding home, it sounds like the ball would have continued backspinning and possibly rolled out into foul territory. As Ajaywill recently noted in another thread, a ball isn't fair or foul until it a) comes to rest b) passes 1st or 3rd and hits the ground, or c) is touched by a player in fair or foul territory. As none of these happened, I believe that since the ball hit the runner in fair terriritory and the runner prevented a fielder (catcher) from potentially fielding the ball, the runner is out. What I do wonder is if home plate is a base that can be occupied, because that may offer an exception? Nonetheless, if I had to make the call, I would scream as loud as I could "Dead ball, interference, runner is out. Batter is awarded first base" and hope that noone questioned me and pray that my field umpire could save my bacon if they did!

The run has to count. I don't see any way to justify calling the runner out having already legally reached home plate.

I know that interference does not have to be intentional to be called, but as described, I don't see how the offensive player who is most likely preparing to get up and proceed to her dugout is guilty of anything. Assuming the offensive player is not deliberately blocking them from doing so, if the play has not been ruled dead, then the defense has every opportunity to pick up the ball and attempt to make a play on the batter-runner.

 

[Greenmonsters]

The run has to count. I don't see any way to justify calling the runner out having already legally reached home plate.

I know that interference does not have to be intentional to be called, but as described, I don't see how the offensive player who is most likely preparing to get up and proceed to her dugout is guilty of anything. Assuming the offensive player is not deliberately blocking them from doing so, if the play has not been ruled dead, then the defense has every opportunity to pick up the ball and attempt to make a play on the batter-runner.

Understood, but the defense making a play on the batter/runner includes the option of not making a play by letting the ball roll foul unimpeded and the runner contacting the ball after scoring removed that option.

 

[Ajaywill]

Understood, but the defense making a play on the batter/runner includes the option of not making a play by letting the ball roll foul unimpeded and the runner contacting the ball after scoring removed that option.

Actually....no. The interpretation of "making a play" is having the opportunity to get an out.

The definition of interference is hindering the defense from making a play. There are rules that deal with a runner that has been retired (put out) or scoring committing interference.

In the OP, I can't imagine that the batter-runner would not be to first base by the time the ball hit the runner that had scored, therefore, there is no play to be interferred with. Letting the ball roll foul would not result in an out.

Now, if the batter-runner was still standing near the plate waiting for the ball to roll foul or trying to advance further than first base, there is a definite possibility that the ball hitting the runner could be considered interference IF the defense was trying to play on the batter-runner. If the defense is just standing there waiting for the ball to roll foul, I don't think I could justify an interference call.

 

[FutureUmp]

Actually....no. The interpretation of "making a play" is having the opportunity to get an out.

The definition of interference is hindering the defense from making a play. There are rules that deal with a runner that has been retired (put out) or scoring committing interference.

In the OP, I can't imagine that the batter-runner would not be to first base by the time the ball hit the runner that had scored, therefore, there is no play to be interferred with. Letting the ball roll foul would not result in an out.

Now, if the batter-runner was still standing near the plate waiting for the ball to roll foul or trying to advance further than first base, there is a definite possibility that the ball hitting the runner could be considered interference IF the defense was trying to play on the batter-runner. If the defense is just standing there waiting for the ball to roll foul, I don't think I could justify an interference call.

Correct me if I am wrong. The rule book states that interference is comited when the defense is trying to make a put out. Correct? If they were waiting on it to role foul then there would be no attempted putout; therefore, there would be no interference. The big Q is if they were attempting to make a putout, who would be called out for interference? The runner if they had not touched home, but in this case they had. Would the Batter runner be out bc she was the closest to home. If the BR was out then would the run count if it was the 3rd out?

 

[Ajaywill]

In ASA, it's rule 8.7.P.

If a runner that has already scored interferes, the runner closest to home is declared out. In the case of the OP, that would be the Batter-Runner. The out is declared at the time of the interference, if it was the third out, the run would count, since the runner scored prior to the interference.