whats the ruling?

If it's a R2 only I would kill the ball and explain he needs not touch the ball again. If there are multible runners I might think about getting the closest to home. This I would figure on the fly.

First off the runner is out for offensive interference. The runner is not allowed to interfere with the defense. At the time he commits the interference the ball is dead and his throwing it to the outfield is moot. No other runners may advance.

Juat to make sure - the RUNNER at 2nd catches the ball - extreme warning or more likely travesty (sp) of game - he is GONE

There is no interference. For an interference call he must do something to keep the defense from making a play. He is the only runner and he was on the bag so the defense has no play on him. It's a dumb move on his part and should have a talking to but you can't get an out here. You might stretch it into an USC call but unless there is something that has caused a problem, yakking between the players for example, I don't think you can go there. There is no basis for a "travesty" call. That only applies to running the bases backwards.
Give a stern warning and let it go.

This situation is interesting and I'm surprised that there hasn't been more comment, especially since two posters have disagreed with an umpire who regularily posts (correct) interpretations here.
A straight-forward reading of the rules strongly implies that the runner would be out. But, for OBR, Jaksa/Roder say:
"A runner has interfered with the flight of a thrown ball, a throw absent a batted ball, or a tag attempt only if such runner (1) commits an intentional action that disregards his try to get to a base safely, and (2) such action hinders a fielder trying to throw or trying to tag."

Since the runner is in contact with second base, no tag try is possible. In fact, the runner isn't in jeopardy of being put out, and at this point no play is possible, and consequently the rulebook definition of interference--hindering a fielder trying to make a play--isn't met.

So I think, if there is only R2, Michael S. Taylor is correct in killing the ball and issuing a "don't do that".
Looking at it from a different perspective, what should the runner do if he sees a thrown ball approaching his belt buckle? Leave the base and be possibly tagged out? Wear it?
Finally, if R2 is on the base and in position to catch the ball, where the heck is the infielder? Why hasn't he caught the ball?

I say there is interference. 20dad said:

quote:

catcher throws down to second for a po attempt

MLB OBR definition of interference is: interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder ATTEMPTING to make a play.

The word attempting is key here. You can attempt to get a runner out even though he is on the bag. Still disagree? Why did the catcher throw the ball to the infielder and why was the infielder going to catch the ball? They were ATTEMPTING to get the base runner out.
Fungo

so, just catching the ball as a reflex action would or should have no consequence? the throwing of the ball would?

Since it was hypothetical, we don't actually know what might have been going on -- but it's not that uncommon that the catcher makes a snap throw on his own, and the infielder(s) weren't expecting it. So they may have been 10-15 ft away from the bag.

So whilte the CATCHER may have been ATTENPTING to make a play, it's possible that the infielder was not. And the runner's action didn't interfere at all with what the catcher did.

But my problem isn't with the runner catching the ball, it's with throwing it into right field. What if he had heaved it into the stands -- would that have changed the ruling? If so, where do you draw the line.

How is throwing the ball as a runner not grounds for calling him out? Forget about the rule book, there is no rule for every situation out there, in this case, I call him out...How can it be any other way?

There is too much HTBT in this to provide any concise ruling.........

I would have had to seen this to decide, but I'd lean more toward MST's interpretation. Like MST I'd probably have a case for USC.