What's the call?

My earlier point is that the catcher was not "busting out" from anywhere.  It remains unchallenged.

According to the OP, in the time it took the bunted ball to reach the grass in front of the home plate circle and come to rest, the catcher took all of about two or three steps to travel from just behind home plate all the way to home plate.  That is not "busting out."

Even with a "huge lead," the runner from third would still have needed to run some distance, perhaps 30-50 feet, to score after the ball was bunted.  In that time, the catcher moved all of about about two or three steps.  That is not "busting out."

The batter-runner had time, according to the OP, to lay down the bunt, clear the batter's box, and head down the line toward first base. In that time, the catcher moved about two or three steps.  That is not "busting out."

One of the problems with this situation is that the OP asserts the catcher was coming out to play the ball but gives a factual description that is inconsistent with that assertion.  

Whether the catcher was attempting to field the ball is a judgment call for the umpire to make.  In this situation, nothing in the OP's description provides any basis to judge that the catcher, who was parked on top of the plate while the ball is at rest at least 13 feet away (not 8 feet--see my earlier post), deserves protection as a fielder in the act of attempting to field the ball.  

Safe at home.  Game over.  

Dash, 

First, you don't have to make this personal.  I know from lots of your previous posts that you're a much more experienced umpire than I am and that you know your stuff.  In this case, I think you are accepting the judgment of the OP, which could very well differ from the judgment you would have made if you saw the play in person.

Even if the diameter of the circle was a few feet shorter than regulation, the fact remains that we have four moving parts.  Three moving parts do something significant (the ball gets bunted and is allowed to come to rest, the runner completes the last segment of his run home and executes a slide, and the batter-runner clears the vicinity after laying down the bunt).  One moving part only goes a couple steps.

If the catcher was in fact busting out to make a play on the ball, he'd have been already coming out of his crouch and starting his first step forward as the ball made contact with the bat.  Then he would have followed the ball the 8 or 13 feet it rolled, snagged it before it came to rest, and thrown the runner out by six steps.  

Our difference is over which parts of the OP's account we find more credible.  I accepted the facts and challenged his judgment.  You accepted his judgment, but (in my opinion) had to overlook some facts to do so.

Best wishes

Nothing personal swampboy - it's a civil discussion.  You are correct - my ruling is based on the assumption that the catcher had a play on the batter/runner.  If he had no chance of throwing him out, I wouldn't have INT either.

My first take on the OP was to ask; was F2 busting out for the ball, or standing on the plate awaiting a play (throw) or kinda spectating and wondering what to do?  Who started this mess, we need more info... 

But, as I ran the play through in OBR: I struggled to find a sit. more realistic, in my small mind.. went straight to 2nd base with R2 (runner at second only), a high chopper over the mound, or a slow sinking flare right at the bag, a batted ball regardless.. as R2 dives, slides or scurries back into/onto 2nd the SS trips over, bangs into or dodges R2, nothing intentional about it... R2 was in contact with 2B when the contact occurred, 

In OBR I got nothing.  Something shiny must have caught my eye but I applied the same principle to HP.  If contact at HP occurred prior to or after scoring as in "no longer in contact with", int. every time If F2 was really the PI. 

This is what I would call today and let the protest committee work it out.  Were I on that PC, I'd be hard pressed to overturn it..but would I I could find anything definitive,, thus far, Thankfully I have never seen such a play, but just wait....   

The part you've quoted refers to intentional interference with a thrown ball or a tag  attempt.  The part I paraphrased is in Section VI of "Offensive Interference", and refers to offensive teammates, which include "a player who had been a runner but has touched home and is signaling to a following runner."  The criteria for interference of an offensive teammate is different from a runner.  IMO, whether a runner is just before touching the plate, or at the moment of the first touch, or just afterward, he is still treated as a runner for the purposes of interference.  Both the part you've quote and the one I've quoted support that.  

Independent of the preceding paragraph, in the great majority of situations in which a runner can hinder a player attempting to field a batted ball, the runner has about a second to react to the situation.  In the OP, there is minimal time to react.  

We have other situations in which a player who has minimal time to react is exempted from  a rule.  For example, a batted ball which strikes the batter while he is still in the box but in fair territory is treated as a foul ball, and not an out.  I've already mentioned the case of a B/R and catcher becoming entangled after a batted ball goes up the 1st base line--this is regarded as incidental contact.  I think the OP is incidental contact also.

3 Finger would the fact that the batter / runner HAS to go to first when he and the catcher get tangled up make it incidental contact whereas in this situation it's not because the runner isn't forced to go home?  I think that's a huge key factor here in keeping it from being similar to that situation - a batter has nowhere else to go so when contact happens it is incidental (assuming he doesn't do anything blatant).

Obviously as others have stated there are many questions regarding this play and we would need to see it to truly make a judgment.  But I think there is enough here to warrant considering interference although it's a crazy play that hardly ever happens.

First question - why are they squeezing with two outs?

Second question - how fast is the runner on third, how big of a lead and how slow was the windup?

Third question - what exactly was the catcher doing - was he setting up for a play or was he coming out to make the play?

Fourth question - was it really 8 feet and why such a specific number like that?

Until we know exactly what the answer to these questions are we don't have a clue.

The way I read the OP was that the runner broke on the step back and was fast enough to be on top of the hitter when contact was made.  There is going to be a very quick moment where the hitter is going to get out of the way before the catcher starts coming out.  That opens the door for the timing for the runner and catcher to occupy the plate area at the same time.  I've called suicide squeezes before where during the windup I as afraid my runner was going to get to the plate before the ball is put into play.  So it's possible.

If the catcher is coming out to make the play on the ball - which is what he should do with two outs but can't guarantee that since it's such a strange time to squeeze - then I can see it being interference if he has a legitimate chance at the ball.

If the catcher is on the plate set up for a play then run scores.

Hi all,

Thank you for the good feedback and analysis. This is a very tricky situation and there are strong opinions that 1) because the catcher is attempting to field a ball, he has absolute protection from any interference; and 2) the catcher does not have absolute protection and the run scores/game over because the slide was legal.

I believe this may end up being a comment in future NFHS rules. The call on the field was interference after a lengthy meeting between the umpires.

Analysis: The catcher is in a tough spot here because he's hearin "he's coming" from players and coaches, then the batter bunts the ball so the catcher is on his heels. Because R3 got such a huge jump and is fleet of foot the slide happens just after the batter has cleared the plate. The catcher has his front foot on the plate and R#'s slide across the plate takes him out. If I were the plate umpire, I'd look to see if the slide were legal. The rules of interference give the fielder protection in most situations unless the it is unreasonable for the offensive player to "disappear." I see it that R3 has a right to the plate and incidental contact happened in the course of a clean baseball play. The runner cannot slide into home base and be expected to stop his momentum. I have checked this with the President of the Massachusetts BUA and he agrees but many umpires disagree. There is enough to support either call.

There is no such exception on a fielder's initial attempt to field a batted ball.

I am not trying to convince you that I am right and you are wrong. My interpretation of 7.08 (b) Comment and 7.09 (j) Comment suggest expceptions where the fielder making an initial attempt to field a ball are not protected by the interference rule.

The only exception from a runner interfering with a fielder's initial attempt to field a batted ball is when the runner has contact with a legally occupied base (not the case in your OP).  7.09(j) is not an exception, it's just a clarification that only one fielder can be protected (i.e., the other 'non-protected' fielder is deemed not to be attempting to field the batted ball).

My previous comment was addressing your assertion that the runner may not be guilty of interference if it is unreasonable for him to disappear.  That is simply not correct.

I respectfully disagree. The 7.09 (J) reference is about the comment in the OR's from 2010 forward. "When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called." This is clearly a situation where the catcher is making a play on the ball and is not protected from interference. A good clean baseball play is brining R3 and the catcher to contact and I cannot take away R3's right to slide into home. I accept that others may not share that opinion.

The classic "tangle/untangle" is not a situation where the catcher has lost his protection from INT (he hasn't), it's a situation where there was no interference.  There is a difference.