MLB Ejections 065-6 - Barrett/Moore (PHI Overrun of 2B)

3B Umpire Lance Barrett ejected Phillies infield coach Bobby Dickerson and HP Umpire Malachi Moore ejected pitching coach Caleb Cotham (Replay Review decision that confirmed 2B Umpire Mike Estabrook's safe / no abandonment call; QOCY) in the bottom of the 8th inning of the #Phillies-#Reds game. With one out and two on, Reds batter Sal Stewart hit a 3-2 sinker from Phillies pitcher Orion Kerkering on the ground to 3B Alec Bohm, who threw to 2B Bryson Stott, to 1B Bryce Harper, as Reds baserunner R1 Elly De La Cruz arrived at second base, ruled safe by 2B Umpire Estabrook and confirmed via Replay Review as the result of a manager's challenge by Phillies manager Don Mattingly. Replays indicate De La Cruz beat the throw to second base, overran second base, was not tagged, and returned to second base immediately after overrunning it, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Phillies were leading, 4-1. The Phillies ultimately won the contest, 4-1.

This is Lance Barrett (94)'s 4th ejection of 2026.

This is Malachi Moore (44)'s 1st ejection of 2026.

*Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(2): "Any runner is out when after touching first base, they leave the base path, obviously abandoning their effort to touch the next base."

MLB’s 2015 Change: "If a runner runs through 2B or 3B on a potential force play and is ruled out on the field, they can be called out for abandonment if they are ruled safe on instant replay but do not attempt to hold the base or advance to the next base."

Enforcement: "Call may only be made by the Replay Official when a force out at second or third is overturned."

Time Play: "If a time play occurs with a runner attempting to score from third base, the Replay Official will determine if the runner going home touched home plate before the abandoning runner passed the base (i.e., when their second foot touched the ground beyond the base)."

These are the 64th and 65th ejection reports of the 2026 MLB regular season.

This is the 11/12th coach ejection of 2026. Ejection Tally: 34 Managers, 12 Coaches, 20 Players.

This is Philadelphia's 3/4th ejection of 2026, 1st in the NL East (PHI 4; MIA 3; NYM 2; ATL, WAS 1).

This is Bobby Dickerson's 2nd ejection of 2026, 1st since June 30 (Cory Blaser; QOC = Y [Replay]).

This is Caleb Cotham's first career MLB ejection.

This is Lance Barrett's 4th ejection of 2026, 1st since May 30 (Brent Suter; QOC = U [Anthem Standoff]).

This is Malachi Moore's 1st ejection since July 13, 2024 (Marcus Thames; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Philadelphia Phillies vs Cincinnati Reds, 7/7/26 | Video as follows:

Mariners' Moore Out for Abandonment at First Base

Mariners batter-runner Dylan Moore lost his single in Kansas City, ruled out by 1B Umpire John Libka for abandonment when Moore wrongly thought Royals left fielder MJ Melendez had caught his fly ball and began running back to his dugout before realizing his mistake and running back to first base where Royals first baseman Matt Duffy's tag was waiting...but was it even needed?

In declaring Moore out sans tag, 1B Umpire Libka invoked Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(2), which states, "Any runner is out when after touching first base, they leave the base path obviously abandoning their effort to touch the next base."

The rule itself contains a case play to drive the point home: "PLAY — Runner believing they are called out on a tag at first or third base starts for the dugout and progresses a reasonable distance still indicating by their actions that they are out, shall be declared out for abandoning the bases."

Thus, the only judgment-related question here is whether Moore, who touched first base before turning to jog back to the dugout, had progressed a "reasonable distance" and in doing so "indicating by their actions that they are out"...or was the abandonment out call a tad premature?

Do not confuse this rule with OBR 5.09(b)(10), which states, "Any runner is out when, after they have acquired legal possession of a base, they run the bases in reverse order for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game. The umpire shall immediately call “Time” and declare the runner out" if for no other reason than Moore was too confused to have intended to confuse the defense or make a travesty of the game, which begs the question...who was more confused—Dylan Moore today or Jean Segura 10 years prior?

NOTE: Technically, Moore was credited with a single and THEN out for abandonment, as the rule requires the runner have actually achieved first base prior to this call. | Video as follows:

Abandonment Issues During a Home Run

Although Texas Tech batter Sam Hunt batted a ball over the outfield wall, in flight and in fair territory, during a college game against Kansas, he nonetheless was declared out while running the bases. Was abandonment the proper ruling here and why is that?

The Play: Simply put, Hunt hit a deep fly ball to center field that left the ballpark for an apparent home run. Kansas center fielder Sergio Rivera, however, leapt in an effort to catch the ball (failed to catch the ball), and in turn Hunt mistakenly thought Rivera had caught the fly ball for an out, leaving the base path and jogging toward his team's third-base dugout before realizing his error at some point around shallow shortstop, attempting to run back to touch second base.

The Call: If our 2B Umpire had incorrectly ruled Hunt out for the catch (that didn't exist), we would have a situation in which we could correct harm caused by an incorrect call. That's not what happened though. 

The 2B Umpire properly ruled and signaled a home run well before Hunt began to peel off without making an effort to run the bases, meaning our 3B Umpire came in and called Hunt out for abandonment.

The Rule: NCAA rules largely agree with OBR (and NFHS) here that a runner is out for abandonment, defined as, "The act of any runner who leaves the base path, after reaching first base, heading for their dugout or defensive position believing there is no further play" (NCAA 2-1). OBR 5.09(b)(2) elucidates the abandonment out: "After touching first base, they leave the base path, obviously abandoning their effort to touch the next base." NCAA 8-5-c is similar in declaring the runner out.

High school, for what its worth, uses baseline instead of base path but for a dead ball base award (HR) situation like this, it hardly makes a realistic difference: "After at least touching first base, leaves the baseline, obviously abandoning their effort to touch the next base" (NFHS 8-4-2p).

Conclusion: This is abandonment and properly officiated. When the runner leaves the base path under the auspices of the rules above, said runner is immediately out. There is no appeal play, this is an umpire-initiated call. As such, a runner can not be "undeclared" out simply by returning after-the-fact to run the bases for the runner, again, is retired immediately upon the umpire ruling abandonment, which, by virtue of Hunt's actions, appears to have been what occurred.

Video as follows:

Royals' Runners Passing Replay Stands on Tag Attempt

Royals Manager Mike Matheny unsuccessfully challenged 3B Umpire David Rackley's runners passing no-call Friday night in Kansas City as catcher Salvador Perez ran White Sox runner R3 Zack Collins back to and past third base, into left field, as trail runner R2 Billy Hamilton stood on third base, in rare case where being "too good" at one's job might have cost Kansas City an extra out.

The Play: With one out and two on (R2, R3) in the 7th inning of a 3-0 game, Chicago batter Nick Madrigal hit a ground ball to Kansas City shortstop Nick Madrigal, who threw to catcher Perez as White Sox R3 Collins ran toward home plate and R2 Hamilton advanced to third base. Perez ran Collins back to third base where Hamilton was standing and as Perez attempted to tag Collins, Collins ran past the base and up the left field line.

The Call: 3B Umpire David Rackley signaled Hamilton safe at third base after a collision with Perez and then signaled Collins out for abandoning his effort to run the bases.

The Challenge: Matheny challenged Rackley's runner's passing no-call, asserting that Hamilton (the trailing runner) should have been declared out when Collins (the lead/preceding runner) ran past third base and into left field.

The Rule: A very similar play occurred during Spring Training 2021 when 3B Umpire Sam Holbrook called Tampa Bay's Nathan Lukes (trailing runner) out for passing Vidal Brujan (lead runner). Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(9) states that a runner is out when they pass a preceding runner: "A runner may be deemed to have passed a preceding (i.e., lead) runner based on their actions or the actions of a preceding runner." For abandonment, a runner is out pursuant to OBR 5.09(b)(2) when the runner leaves the base path, "obviously abandoning their effort to touch the next base." Finally, though this did not occur here, if two runners are in contact with a base at the same time, OBR 5.06(a)(2) states, "the following runner shall be out when tagged and the preceding runner is entitled to the base, unless [it is a force play and the trailing runner is forced to advance; in this situation, the preceding/lead runner is out when tagged]."

Related Post: Runners Passing Nearly Turns to Lead Abandonment (3/9/21).

As we previously discussed, the abandonment rule means that it is simply not possible for a lead runner in this situation to be out for abandonment until said runner returns to and runs past the base, thus causing a passing situation to occur. In other words, the runner must demonstrate their abandonment through actions, such as running up the left field line well past third base and the only way to do that is to cause the trail runner to be guilty of passing the lead runner prior to the abandonment.

The Replay Review & Result: Thus, the CWS-KC play had all the makings of a double play for passing and abandonment, if not for one crucial piece: catcher Salvy Perez's tag attempt. If Perez was able to tag Collins prior to Collins returning to third base, Collins would be out at the moment of the tag and thus Hamilton would be unable to pass him. Because the Replay Official could not definitively determine whether a tag actually occurred, Rackley's call (abandonment, no passing) stood and Hamilton remained at third base.

This is one situation where Perez's hustle might have actually hurt his team; if Perez didn't attempt to tag Collins, all else equal, Hamilton would have been out for passing followed shortly by Collins being declared out for abandonment: an inning-ending double play.

Video as follows:

Runners Passing Nearly Turns to Lead Abandonment

A runners passing situation during Tuesday's Spring Training game between the Red Sox and Rays in Florida led umpires to declare Tampa Bay baserunner Nathan Lukes out for passing Vidal Brujan, who nearly abandoned his running of the bases and could have been called for a second out on the play. What happened?

Play: With one out and two on (R2 Lukes, R3 Brujan), Rays batter Brett Sullivan took a called fourth ball, drawing a walk. R3 Brujan, who apparently thought the bases were loaded, started jogging toward home plate as Boston alertly trapped Brujan in a rundown, with R2 Lukes hustling to third base. As Red Sox pitcher John Schreiber ran R3 Brujan back to third base, a runners passing situation occurred, identified by 3B Umpire and Crew Chief Sam Holbrook, who declared R2 Lukes out. After confusion, during which Brujan ran back to and entered the Tampa Bay dugout, Brujan was returned to third base, Lukes declared out, and batter-runner Sullivan placed at second base.

Rules: Runners passing occurs when a trailing runner fully passes a preceding runner. According to Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(9), which states that a runner is out when "he passes a preceding runner before such runner is out," it doesn't exactly matter who physically passed whom; in all cases, it is the trail who is out: "A runner may be deemed to have passed a preceding (i.e., lead) runner based on his actions or the actions of a preceding runner."

As far as abandonment is concerned—seeing as Brujan clearly ran to and entered the Rays dugout—OBR 5.09(b)(2) states that a runner is out when the runner leaves the base path, "obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base." The example play is as follows: "PLAY—Runner believing he is called out on a tag at first or third base starts for the dugout and progresses a reasonable distance still indicating by his actions that he is out, shall be declared out for abandoning the bases."

Analysis: So why wasn't this a double play? In the end, Brujan may have been saved by a combination of two factors: First, it's Spring Training and a certainly leniency exists in March that would not in, say, July. Second, 3B Umpire Holbrook appeared to call "Time" before declaring Lukes out for passing.

That "Time" call makes abandonment a little trickier, as during a dead ball situation, runners similarly have a bit more lenience before abandonment sets in. That said....Brujan did enter the dugout, and unless it was for the purposes of uniform repair, it would be reasonable to believe he did so because he had abandoned his base-running role, or, as OBR 5.09(b)(2) PLAY states, because Brujan believed he had been "called out."

Lessons Learned: First, even when players don't know the rules, umpires must maintain both knowledge and awareness. In this situation, R3 Brujan did not know his entitlement to third base, but U3 Holbrook did.

However, the second part of our lesson is patience. Keep the ball alive and in play unless all action has ceased or as otherwise prescribed by rule. For the purposes of this play, runners passing is a simple out declaration: it is not a reason to call "Time" while the ball is loose and other action is taking place. But if "Time" is going to be called, erroneously or otherwise, that moves the goalpost for other calls, such as abandonment: "Time" kills the play and certain events—such as runners advancing—simply cannot occur during a dead ball (unless part of a base award).

That said, an umpire is empowered by Rule 8.02(c) to place runners as if the reversed call had never been made, disregarding events that may have occurred after the call-to-be-reversed: "If the umpires consult after a play and change a call that had been made, then they have the authority to take all steps that they may deem necessary, in their discretion, to eliminate the results and consequences of the earlier call that they are reversing." In this case, abandonment occurred after the "Time" call and may have been reversed pursuant to OBR 8.02(c).

Wrap: Boston Red Sox vs. Tampa Bay Rays (Spring Training), 3/9/21 | Video as follows:

Ask UEFL - Runner Tagged Out After Base on Balls?

Saturday's Clemson-South Carolina NCAA baseball game prompted an Ask the UEFL feature when 2B Umpire Scott Kennedy ruled Tigers baserunner Dylan Brewer out at second base during a base-on-balls play: the correct call, despite the walk's associated base award.

Our analysis of this play begins with reference to precedent, a similar 2017 play in Seattle we turned into a Case Play at the time. The situation was remarkably identical: none out, one on (R1) running with the pitch, and a 3-2 count on the batter. In both situations, the defense attempts to retire R1 as the catcher throws to second as the plate umpire rules the pitch ball four.

During the Seattle sequence, 2B Umpire Laz Diaz presided over Mariners baserunner Jean Segura's arrival, who like Brewer was a runner on first base running on a 3-2 count, ruled ball four by HP Umpire Cory Blaser and affirmed as "no swing" by 1B Umpire Jeff Nelson. Just as with Clemson's Brewer, Segura runs past second base, but unlike SCar-Clemson's Kennedy, 2B Umpire Diaz does not declare Segura out.

The reason Diaz no-called Seattle's play while Kennedy called Clemson's runner out is actually quite simple: In the Clemson game, the defense clearly tagged the runner while the runner was both off his base and after the runner had already passed second base; in Seattle, Astros second baseman Jose Altuve did not actually tag Segura past second base despite Segura being clearly off his base: this is not abandonment at this point (Segura did eventually return to second base, after all), and, with no continued tag attempt, this is not an out of the base path call either.

Related Post: Case Play 2017-2 - Stealing an Extended Walk [Solved] (4/11/17).

Instead, we rely on plain old Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(4) ("any runner is out when—he is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base"). The NCAA equivalent is 8-5-i and the only difference between the OBR and NCAA language is that college's rule is gender-inclusive: "The individual is touched by the ball (when not dead) securely held in the hand or glove of a fielder while the runner is not touching the base."

That said, we know that a runner is protected from liability to be put out on a base award, such as a walk (OBR 5.05(b)(1) / NCAA 2-2, 8-2-b), so the tag of Brewer's helmet is rather meaningless: ball four precludes the stolen base attempt and turns it into a base award. Instead, the question becomes at what point at or around the awarded base does the runner lose their "without liability to be put out" protection?

For instance, OBR 5.05(b)(1) Comment states, "If, in advancing, the base runner thinks there is a play and he slides past the base before or after touching it he may be put out by the fielder tagging him." So what does "past" actually mean?

The answer, it turns out, is found in the MLB Umpire Manual for "passing a base" which is a view shared by college: "A runner is considered to have passed a base if he has both feet on the ground beyond the back edge of the base or beyond the edge of the base in the direction to which he is advancing." Also see the linked article regarding Past or Prior for an in-depth discussion of the rationale and ramifications of this rule/interpretation.

NCAA's inclusive language in 8-6-a-3 is as follows: "A runner is considered to have passed a base if the player has both feet on the ground beyond the back edge of the base or beyond the edge of the base in the direction in which the player is advancing." Both OBR and NCAA use the same diagram regarding prior/past: they agree on the rule.

Related Post: Past or Prior - Deciding When a Runner Has Passed a Base (7/1/17).

Putting it all together, we determine that Clemson R1 Brewer passed second base and, thus, lost his protection from liability to be put out while off of the base. As such, as soon as he was tagged while off his base, 2B Umpire Kennedy was proper in both keeping play alive and in his declaration of "out" notwithstanding the 3B Coach's distraction at third base.

Accordingly, refrain from prematurely calling "Time" during a non-HBP base on balls sequence. NCAA's guide on this is delineated by Rule 6-1-Note 2, which states, "The umpire shall not call time until a play has been completed. After a base on balls, the umpire shall not call time until the runner has stopped at first base."

Video as follows:

Real World Rules - Teachable Moment Passes to Life

Nary one week after our recent Tmac's Teachable Moment for Passing Runners in Anytown, USA, a similar grand slam caper turned into a real life UEFL Curse as TMU found itself guilty of a base-running infraction against Cumberland in Georgia.

Play: With two outs and the bases loaded (R1 Mikal Mascarello, R2 Andrew Johnston, R3 Josh Johnston), Truett McConnell University batter Ethan Roberts hit what appeared to be a home run. Replays indicate that, similar to our Teachable, one runner stopped short of touching home plate before a following runner continued jogging and did touch home plate. In this case, it was R3 who failed to touch home plate as R2 followed by touching home plate to complete his own baserunning journey.

Analysis: Cumberland University's box score indicates Josh Johnston, TMU's runner on third base, was called out on appeal for failing to touch a base, but this cannot possibly be accurate under the NCAA/college ruleset pursuant to Rule 8-6-b, which, just like professional baseball's OBR, requires the appeal be lodged while the ball is live or (in this case) has been put back into play.

Thus, we know it was not an appeal. Here's what else it could be:

Runners Passing (Teachable): Under OBR 5.09(b)(9), a runner is out when—"he passes a preceding runner before such runner is out," so R1 is out for passing R2 even though it appears R2 caused the passing to occur ("A runner may be deemed to have passed a preceding (i.e., lead) runner based on his actions or the actions of a preceding runner"). There is no greater example of a runner passing another runner than when a lead runner fails to reach a base, only for a following runner to then arrive at and touch that same base.

Abandonment: Home plate provides a unique circumstance for abandonment since a runner is not obliged to stay on home plate, as they would at another base such as second or third. In this instance, a runner may be called for abandonment at home plate when the runner clearly starts for the dugout and the catcher would be required to chase the offensive player during a live ball.

Because the Cumberland-TMU play involved a dead ball, this portion of abandonment's interpretation does not apply.

Instead, we consult the MLB Umpire Manual (similar interpretation for NCAA), which states that an infraction has occurred (all else equal [e.g., assuming no runners other than R3 were entitled to home plate, as would be the case on a dead ball, one-base award]) only when R3 enters the dugout without having completed his base-running responsibility.

With no other runners, R3, by rule, still has the opportunity to correct his baserunning error prior to the first of either A) entering the dugout or B) the ball being put back into play, upon which the defense could appeal the missed base.

Naturally, in this situation, we know the circumstance of runners passing has occurred by virtue of R2 clearly touching home plate while R3's attempt to touch home plate, as it were, came up noticeably short. Thus, R3 had not yet abandoned his base-running responsibility at the time of R2 touching home plate, but R2's touch of home plate did constitute tangible confirmation that R2 had passed R3 on the bases; thus, R2 is out for passing and R3's run shall not count because in order for R2 to have passed R3, we must presume that R3 had not yet scored (e.g., R3 never made it to home plate). Thus, there is no fourth out appeal situation to be had.

In short, R3 is not out for abandonment solely because R2 passed him first, and R2's out was the final out of the inning. Because R2 passed R3 prior to R3 either entering the dugout or returning to complete the final (short) leg of his running of the bases, the third out of the inning caused by the runner passing precedes any potential abandonment or missed base touch situation.

Video as follows:

UEFL Case Play 2018-5 - Open Baseline Tackle [Solved]

We head into the All-Star Break with our second oddity of the weekend, this time a Case Play that asks what happens when an airborne fielder and runner collide on the base paths—interference or obstruction, block or charge?

3B Umpire Shane Livensparger signals "safe."

The Play: With one out and two on (R1, R2) in the top of the 9th inning of a 9-0 ballgame, Yankees batter Didi Gregorius hit a ground ball to Orioles third baseman Jace Peterson, who threw to second baseman Jonathan Schoop as Peterson collided with Yankees baserunner R2 Clint Frazier. Schoop successfully forced out R1 Aaron Judge at second base, but Gregorius beat out the ensuing throw to first with Frazier taking third, as replays indicate Peterson did not tag him.

Case Play Question: When Frazier and Peterson collided between second and third base, umpires considered whether the former interfered with the latter, or whether it was the fielder who obstructed the runner. Replays indicate that immediately following the collision, 3B Umpire Shane Livensparger indicated "safe" (no tag, no interference, no obstruction) as 2B Umpire Chris Guccione turned to officiate the force and bona fide slide play at second base.

Is this obstruction, interference, or nothing (or both)? What is the proper outcome for this play?

Answer: This play was officiated properly.

For interference to be called, the baserunner must impede a fielder's attempt to collect a batted ball or a fielder who has fielded a batted ball from throwing the ball in the immediate aftermath of fielding the ball. Because fielder F5 Peterson successfully threw the ball before his interaction with runner R2 Frazier, the logical conclusion for interference isn't satisfied and, thus, this is not interference. In other words, by the time Frazier undercuts Peterson, the ball is away and Frazier has not impeded the fielder's ability to field nor complete his throw.

For obstruction to be called, the fielder not in the act of fielding a batted ball must impede the progress of a baserunner. This train-wreck of a collision would therefore satisfy the criteria for obstruction only if the runner is impeded from attempting to advance after the fielder has completed his throw of the batted ball. If the runner, as was the case here, appears to "give up," there can be no obstruction since there was no hindrance. Had the runner exhibited any effort to advance while the fielder continued to lie on top of him, this would be obstruction.

As it played out, this is properly no-called: there is no interference, and there is no obstruction. That said, had the defense attempted to make a play on the downed runner at third base, the umpires (primarily U3) would have to make a call (or no-call) on F5/R2's post-collision interaction. If Frazier is under the (incorrect) impression that he is out for interference, or that he has been tagged out, and willfully walks off the field, abandonment is an additional possibility.

Again, this is an intent mind-reading game the umpire must play. If the runner's attempt to advance is impeded, this is Obstruction Type 2 (no play on the obstructed runner at the time of obstruction). If he has not attempted to advance, there is no obstruction. This could theoretically turn into an Obstruction Type 1 play if, for instance, a play is attempted on the runner at third base and only upon this attempted play does the runner attempt to advance. In this case (OBS 1/A), the runner would be awarded third on the dead ball infraction.

Official Baseball Rules Library
OBR 6.01(a)(6): "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter-runner because of the action of his teammate."
OBR 6.01(a)(10): "It is interference by a batter or runner when—He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball."
OBR 6.01(h)(2): "If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call 'Time' and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction."
OBR Definitions: "Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."
OBR Definitions: "OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner."
MLBUM RE: 6.01(a)(10): "If, after a player has fielded a batted ball but before he is able to throw the ball, a runner hinders or impedes such fielder, the runner shall be called out for interference."

Video as follows:

Abandonment Call in Seattle Helps M's Turn Triple Play

For all the times we have discussed Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(2) regarding abandonment, rarely does such a play occur. Thursday's game at Safeco Field turned the tide, as 1B Umpire Brian Gorman ruled Astros batter-runner Evan Gattis out after he started for the dugout, apparently unaware of how many outs there were, thus indicating by his actions that he was out.

Gorman and Tripp Gibson signal Gattis out.

The Play: With none out and two on (R1, R2), Gattis hit a check-swing ground ball to Mariners third baseman Kyle Seager, who stepped on third base ahead of baserunner R2 Jose Altuve's arrival, and threw to second baseman Robinson Cano, who stepped on second base ahead of baserunner R1 Carlos Correa's arrival. Although Seattle seemed quite content with the double play, batter-runner Gattis, after touching first base, made a wide turn and began jogging toward Houston's dugout on the third-base side of the field. Seattle first baseman Daniel Vogelbach called for the ball, chased after, and tagged Gattis.

The Call: After progressing a reasonable distance toward the dugout with no indication that he intended to return to first base, 1B Umpire Gorman invoked Rule 5.09(b)(2) and declared Gattis out for abandoning his effort to run the bases; Vogelbach's tag occured after Gorman's declaration of abandonment (thus, the inning ended the moment Gorman ruled that Gattis had abandoned his effort, not when the tag was made). This would be important in determining whether a runner would have scored prior to the third out, as in a time play.

SIDEBAR: Abandonment in this situation triumphs over out-of-the-base-path rule 5.09(b)(1) because the three-foot base path rule ("He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball") requires Gattis' actions to be an attempt to avoid being tagged. Gattis' movement stems from abandoning his effort to touch the next base, as opposed to an attempt to avoid being tagged. By the time Gattis first becomes aware of a tag attempt and begins moving to avoid being tagged, he has already been declared out for abandonment.

Gorman's out call precedes Vogelbach's tag.

OBR 5.09(b)(2): Any runner is out when: after touching first base, he leaves the base path, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base.

The rule's comment elucidates the principle: "Any runner after reaching first base who leaves the base path heading for his dugout or his position believing that there is no further play, may be declared out if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases. Even though an out is called, the ball remains in play in regard to any other runner."

And if all that weren't enough, the Rules Committee saw fit to include a case play to illustrate the concept of abandonment: "Runner believing he is called out on a tag at first or third base starts for the dugout and progresses a reasonable distance still indicating by his actions that he is out, shall be declared out for abandoning the bases."

We have discussed the issue of a game-ending situation relative to abandonment many times over.
Related Post: Walk On - Bases Loaded HBP Abandonment Forces Extras (4/6/18).

Abandonment can occur during a home run.

KEEP IN MIND: This rule also applies to potential walk-off situations. If, during a potential game-winning home run, a baserunner cuts across the field instead of completing the base touch responsibilities (e.g., if R1 touches second, but then runs back to first to celebrate and makes no effort to run the bases), that baserunner would be out for abandonment. Unless there are two out (in which case the inning is over and no following runners may score), the batter-runner would still be permitted to score. This type of abandonment is important to know, because the timing of abandonment relative to a potential "passing a preceding runner" situation would dictate the batter-runner's ability to advance. A trailing runner, obviously, cannot be declared out for passing a preceding runner if such preceding runner has already been declared out for abandonment prior to the potential passing.
Related Post: Case Play 2016-11 - Time to Pass a Runner [Solved] (9/16/16).

TELL THEM APART: Running more than three feet out of the base path to avoid a tag 5.09(b)(1) can be differentiated from abandonment 5.09(b)(2) by the runner's actions: if there is intent to avoid a tag attempt, the out is 5.09(b)(1). If the reason for the runner's movement is principally "I'm not running the bases anymore," the out is 5.09(b)(2). Keep in mind that until a runner actually passes a base to which the runner is headed, abandonment has not occurred and a trailing runner may declared be out for passing. This also applies to any batter-runner who has already touched first base (or run past first base without physically touching it sans appeal). If the BR hasn't yet touched first, he can be retired by simply stepping on the base with the ball. Unlike abandonment rule 5.09(b)(2), out-of-the-base-path rule 5.09(b)(1) does apply to a runner at all times, whether or not the runner has already touched first base.
Related Post: O's Lodge Protest Over Runners Passing Rule Application (4/7/18).

Video as follows:

O's Lodge Protest Over Runners Passing Rule Application

Baltimore filed the first protest of the 2018 season Friday night after umpires declined to rule a double play on an odd rundown play during the Orioles-Yankees game that saw New York's lead runner, Giancarlo Stanton, retreat past third base and into left field as teammate and trail baserunner Gary Sanchez stood on the bag itself.

Meals, Kulpa, Hickox & May listen to Buck.

The Play: With one out and two on (R1, R3), Yankees batter Neil Walker hit a ground ball to Orioles pitcher Richard Bleier, who threw to third baseman Tim Beckham, to catcher Caleb Joseph, as baserunner R3 Stanton became trapped in a rundown between third and home. As Joseph ran Stanton back to third base, trail baserunner R1 Sanchez advanced to third, stepping onto the base with his right foot. With R1 Sanchez standing on third base—and even appearing to motion Stanton to stop—R3 Stanton continued his retreat, running straight through third base and up the left field line before veering into foul territory. Catcher Joseph first tagged Sanchez on third base as Stanton ran into left field before giving chase to, and tagging, Stanton as well.

U3 Kulpa observes F2 Joseph's chase of R3.

The Call: 3B Umpire Ron Kulpa gave no signal when catcher Joseph tagged R1 Sanchez while Sanchez was in contact with third base, and ruled R3 Stanton out when Joseph tagged him beyond the base in foul territory. Upon consultation with HP Umpire Ed Hickox, 1B Umpire and Crew Chief Jerry Meals, and 2B Umpire Ben May, Kulpa's ruling stood and Stanton was declared out, Sanchez "safe" at third base, and batter-runner Walker aboard safely at first.

Orioles Manager Buck Showalter filed a protest as a result of the ruling, but because Baltimore ultimately won the game in extra innings, Showalter's protest is effectively retracted and the result final. Had Baltimore lost, here's how Showalter's protest may have turned out...

MLB rules expert Marazzi is on the phone.

Analysis: The first bit of analysis is to applaud YES Network for calling Rich Marazzi and putting him on air. As Rich surmises, the proper outcome is a double play...but why is that? After all, when R1 Sanchez was tagged, 1) he was on the base and 2) Stanton was not.

What Went Right: Kulpa properly did not call R1 Sanchez out on the tag, and properly called R3 Stanton out on Joseph's tag, but this is where Quality of Correctness falls below the Mendoza line.

What Went Wrong: When R3 Stanton retreated past third base while R1 Sanchez was in contact with the base, he caused R1 Sanchez to commit the offense of passing a preceding runner. Thus, while Sanchez was not out as a result of Joseph's tag, he was out for passing Stanton, even though Stanton looked to have caused the situation (it is the trailing runner's responsibility not to pass a preceding runner). The relevant rule is OBR 5.09(b)(9): "Any runner is out when: He passes a preceding runner before such runner is out."

R1 is legal because R2 never retreated past 2B.

When it comes to a trailing runner passing a preceding (lead) runner between the bases, baseball generally requires one runner's body to physically pass the other's—for instance, runners are allowed to touch each other without consequence, for this is not considered "passing."

When it comes to a potential runners passing situation at the base, we consider an MLB Umpire Manual interpretation, which states, "A runner is considered to have passed a base if he has both feet on the ground beyond the back edge of the base or beyond the edge of the base in the direction to which he is advancing."

Diagram of when a runner has passed a base.

Though this base passing interpretation ordinarily applies to forward progress as runners advance, it is also applicable to retreating runners. This most often occurs during fly out/tag-up situations, where an existing baserunner (e.g., R1), generally running on the pitch, runs past a base, only to return to his base of origin in order to tag up on the caught fly ball. In this case, determining whether the baserunner is past or prior is vital to see if the runner must legally retouch the leading base he may have passed (e.g., for the R1-running-on-the-pitch fly-out play, this would be second base).
Related Post: Rare Real-Time Appeal Retires Runner over Retouch Rule (6/15/17).
Related Post: Past or Prior - Deciding When a Runner Has Passed a Base (7/1/17).

Put it all together and you get Rule 5.09(b)(9) Comment, which is actually an approved ruling, or case play, that the Playing Rules Committee inserted into the rules book, and is precisely what Rich refers to when he says, "the new rule":

PLAY—Runners on second base and third base with one out. The runner from third base (i.e., the lead runner) makes an advance toward home and is caught in a rundown between third base and home plate. Believing the lead runner will be tagged out, the runner at second base (i.e., the trailing runner) advances to third base. Before being tagged, the lead runner runs back to and beyond third base toward left field. At this time, the trailing runner has passed the lead runner as a result of the lead runner’s actions. As a result, the trailing runner is out and third base is unoccupied. The lead runner is entitled to third base if he returns to touch it before he is out, see Rule 5.06(a)(1), unless he is declared out for abandoning the bases.

Suffice it to say, 🚨this is exactly what happened🚨. Lead runner R3 Stanton retreated toward third as trailing runner R1 Sanchez advanced to third base. Before being tagged, R3 Stanton ran back to and beyond third base toward left field, thus running through the past/prior barrier, as depicted above. By rule, R1 Sanchez passed Stanton as a result of Stanton's actions, meaning, R1 Sanchez is out and R3 Stanton is entitled to third base if he returns before he is out...except that fielder Joseph tagged Stanton while off his base, meaning that both baserunners were out.

As for abandonment, let's be clear. U3 Kulpa ruled Stanton out on the tag. Abandonment isn't at issue.

Showalter argues his point to no avail.

Long story short, this double play was missed, may have resulted in an affirmed protest if Baltimore lost the game ("may have," because New York failed to score in the 6th inning, so MLB could have ruled that the incorrect rules application did not affect the outcome of the game), and, had there been an ejection, would have resulted in a QOC of "Incorrect."

It's rare that an MLB game is protested, and it's almost unheard of to have a protest with merit. The last upheld protest—in 2014—concerned a grounds crew that botched its unfurling of a tarp during a Chicago rain delay, and this followed 28 years of no protest having been upheld across the major leagues. What's more, the 2014 protest had absolutely nothing to do with a rules application regarding actual gameplay: it was a rain delay and the decision of suspension vs. calling the game as final. MLB even acknowledged its rain delay tarpaulin rules were deficient and changed the applicable rule during the ensuing offseason. Not so much here, as Rule 5.09(b)(9) Comment fits the Stanton/Sanchez play to a T: MLB won't have to change any rule to account for Friday night's play.
Related Post: Protest Upheld for 1st Time in 28 Yrs in SF-CHC Rainout (8/20/14).

MLB punished Culbreth's crew for its mistake.

The last meritorious MLB protest concerning a bungled gameplay rule occurred in 2013 when Angels Manager Mike Scioscia alleged that Crew Chief Fieldin Culbreth and umpires Brian O'Nora, Bill Welke, and Adrian Johnson failed to enforce then-Rule 3.05 (now 5.10(g)), which requires a substitute pitcher to pitch to the batter then at bat or any substitute batter before that pitcher is removed from the game. Culbreth's crew had allowed Astros Manager Bo Porter to replace his just-into-the-game substitute pitcher in response to Scioscia's decision to bring in a pinch hitter, without that pitcher having thrown a single pitch. Faced with a less desirable pitcher on the mound, Anaheim's Los Angeles' batter flew out to end the inning.
Related Post: Angels Protest After Wright Exits Without Throwing a Pitch (5/9/13).

As the Orioles ultimately won Friday's game in New York, the Angels won 2013's game in Houston, meaning that Scioscia's protest was effectively dropped. Nonetheless, MLB publicly punished the umpiring crew for the rules misapplication, suspending Fieldin Culbreth and fining O'Nora, Welke, and Johnson, for failing to apply a rule.
Related Post: Culbreth Suspended; Johnson, Welke & O'Nora Fined for Pitching Change Fiasco (5/11/13).

Will Meals, Kulpa, Hickox, and May suffer a similar fate for their collective rules error? Stay tuned.

Sidebar: Had both runners been tagged while simultaneously occupying third base, lead runner R3 Stanton would be safe and trail R1 Sanchez would be out.
Related Post: Right of Return - When Two Runners Occupy One Base (4/3/18).

Videos (2x) as follows:

Walk On - Bases Loaded HBP Abandonment Forces Extras

It's Norris High School's turn at bat in the bottom of the final inning in regulation, the score is tied, and the bases are loaded. The batter is hit by a pitch and the home team streams out of the dugout to celebrate, the hit batsman included. As the walk-off party moves up the third base line, the visiting coach storms out to argue that the HBP-batter should be declared out for failing to touch first base and the run nullified; during this dead ball appeal, the batter-runner takes off for first base as the plate umpire prepares to rule on the play.

Norris HS's Cade Argo is called out after HBP.

What's the call?

Such a story befell Norris High School in Nebraska during a recent game against Lincoln Southeast when batter Cade Argo was hit by a pitch to seemingly force in the winning run. Replays indicate, however, that after being hit with the pitch, Argo, in the throes, of team celebration and potential injury from the hit-by-pitch, did not immediately advance toward first base, instead appearing to join with his team in celebration to the third-base side of home plate. Shortly thereafter, the visiting coach runs out to appeal Argo's failure to advance as Argo, sensing the appeal, sprints toward first base in an effort to "beat the appeal."

The question, then, is, plainly, how long a plate umpire should wait for a hit batsman to complete or attempt to complete his base-running responsibility before declaring the batter out for his failure to meet this base touching obligation?

As we learned back in May, NFHS (high school) Rule 9-1-1 Note 2 states, "When the winning run is scored in the last half inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases loaded which forces the runner on third base to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game over until all runners have advanced to the next base."
Related Post: Ask the UEFL - Protested Game-Ending Appeal Force Play (5/18/17).

Rules differences (OBR vs NFHS) in appeal procedure.

The professional rule is similar, but, instead of requiring all runners to advance to their next base, OBR 4.09(b) considers the game over when, "the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base."

EITHER WAY, how long should an umpire wait for the required runner(s) and/or batter-runner to complete their touching responsibilities? When does abandonment kick in, or, conversely, when should the defense be allowed to appeal?

In a somewhat related analysis last season regarding a softball appeal play, we found that an appeal cannot be ruled upon until the player completes base-running responsibilities (again, not directly applicable because it's a softball rule).
Related Post: Case Play 2017-5 - Dead Ball Missed Base Appeal [Solved] (5/4/17).

For what it's worth, this is not abandonment. NFHS Rule 8-4.2p states that abandonment only applies when a runner, "after at least touching first base, leaves the baseline, obviously abandoning his effort to touch the next base." The subsequent Note supports this interpretation, "Any runner, after reaching first base, who leaves the baseline heading for the dugout or his defensive position believing that there is no further play, shall be declared out if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases."

Thus, we're stuck looking for an appeal in high school baseball. NFHS Rule 8-2 Penalty covers the dead ball appeal procedure, stating that, on the last play of the game, "an appeal can be made until the umpire(s) leave the field of play."

Rule 8-2.6c states, "If the ball has gone out of play, runners must be given the opportunity to complete their base-running responsibilities before the dead-ball appeal can be made."

Thus, the proper procedure here is to wait until the batter-runner (and all other runners) have had a reasonable opportunity to complete their base-running responsibilities. Because we're not looking for abandonment, we must give the batter-runner ample time to complete or attempt to touch first base, watching for potential infractions such as base coach assistance along the way.

For what it's worth, NCAA Softball changed its dead ball appeal rule in the wake of the aforementioned 2017 play. Rule 7.1.2.2.3 now states, "all runners must be given an opportunity to complete their base running responsibilities (advancing or returning), as determined by the umpire. Once a runner has been given sufficient time to advance or return and shows no immediate intention of doing so, a dead-ball appeal can be made."

In softball, the runner would be permitted to correct a missed base infraction in this situation until, "she has left the field of play" (7.1.4.1). NFHS baseball has the same rule as NCAA Softball ("he has left the field of play" [8-2.6d]).

Video as follows:

Boston Files Protest Over Odd Interference No-Call

Boston filed a protest alleging interference by Yankees baserunner Matt Holliday as umpires determined no rule infraction occurred during a peculiar sequence Saturday afternoon at Fenway Park.

Is Holliday guilty of interference in Boston?

The Play: With none out and one on (R1) in the top of the 11th inning of the Yankees-Red Sox game, Yankees batter Jacoby Ellsbury hit a 2-2 sinker from Red Sox pitcher Robby Scott on the ground to first baseman Mitch Moreland, who threw to shortstop Xander Bogaerts at second base to retire baserunner R1 Holliday before the return throw to first base wound up striking Ellsbury, resulting in a fielder's choice force out call (no interference). Replays indicate that as Moreland fielded the batted ball, baserunner R1 Holliday—perhaps under the mistaken belief that Moreland had tagged first base before throwing to Bogaerts—retreated to first base, beginning his slide into his base of origin as Bogaerts stepped on second base to force him out. Due to Holliday's slide into first base, fielder Moreland was unable to field Bogaerts' return throw, which arrived around the time Ellsbury passed first base, the ball hitting Ellsbury and deflecting up the right field foul line, after which Ellsbury remained on first base.

Farrell presents his case to Chief Cederstrom.

The Call: 2B Umpire Adrian Johnson ruled R1 Holliday out on the fielder's choice, and 1B Umpire Gabe Morales ruled Ellsbury safe on the uncaught return throw, further ruling that no interference had occurred.

The Argument: Red Sox Manager John Farrell argued with HP Umpire and Crew Chief Gary Cederstrom that Holliday's slide into first base had prevented fielder Moreland from fielding Bogaerts' throw, and, thus, Holliday had committed interference. Farrell argued that this interference should have resulted in a double play. After the four umpires consulted to discuss the play, the interference no-call prevailed, with Cederstrom and Cooper opting to consult with the Replay Operations Center for a rules check regarding interference and its applicability to the aforementioned play. In all, play was denied for approximately nine minutes.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01: Interference, Obstruction and Catcher Collisions
(a) Batter or Runner Interference: It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
(4) Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or teammates;
(5) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate (see Rule 6.01(j))...
(10) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball...if the base runner’s interference is adjudged not to be intentional, the batter-runner shall be awarded first base...
(j) If a runner does not engage in a bona fide slide, and initiates (or attempts to make) contact with the fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play, he should be called for interference under this Rule 6.01...A runner who engages in a 'bona fide slide' shall not be called for interference under this Rule 6.01, even in cases where the runner makes contact with the fielder as a consequence of a permissible slide.

Holliday's slide prevents Moreland's catch.

Analysis: The analysis will comprise of two parts. First, it will address which precise rule applies to this play (versus which provisions don't apply), and, second, we'll discuss the history of this applicable rule and its application to rule what is and is not interference (yes, we had a recent Case Play on this very rule).

To best investigate this play, it will be helpful to go rule-by-rule, point-by-point. Let's begin.
> Rule 6.01(a)(4) states that it is interference when a member of the offense stands or gathers at a base "to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders." 6.01(a)(4) does not apply to this play, as it would require R1 Holliday to have stood (or gathered) at first base with the express purpose of confusing, hindering, or adding to the difficulty of the fielders. Without this intent, it is not interference.
> OBR 6.01(a)(5), also known as recently-retired runner's interference, states that a runner who has been erased from the bases (via an out or score) is guilty of interference if he hinders or impedes a following play. 6.01(a)(5) does apply in any event in which a runner commits a hindering or impeding act after leaving his base path (e.g., abandoning his normal base-running responsibilities), but does not apply when the runner is simply completing a base running maneuver that has begun prior to his retirement. OBR 6.01(a)(5) is the applicable rule.*
> OBR 6.01(a)(10) applies to a runner who intentionally interferes with a thrown ball. As Holliday never actually touched the throw (nor did he appear to intentionally interfere), 6.01(a)(10) does not apply.
> OBR 6.01(j) is the force play slide interference rule, and states, in part, "A runner who engages in a 'bona fide slide' shall not be called for interference under this Rule 6.01." Holliday's slide met the bona fide slide rule criteria (slid into base, held the base, etc.), and 6.01(j) cannot apply for that reason. Is it possible to Rule 6.01(j) interference when a runner retreats to a base and commits an illegal slide? Yes, if the runner initiates (or attempts to initiate) contact with a fielder for the purpose of breaking up a double play.

About Recently Retired Runner's Interference and Residue of a Legitimate Attempt to Run the Bases: Regarding this brand of interference, the Wendelstedt umpiring manual specifies the precise case of a batter-runner who continues running to first base after being retired (say, on a caught bunt or a third strike that results in an out [e.g., a dropped third strike with first base occupied and less than two out]), and specifies that the retired batter-runner may be guilty of retired runner's interference if he interferes with the play being made back into first base while running outside of the running lane.

In other words, per Wendelstedt, the batter-runner is not out if he "hinders or impedes a following play" if he is legitimately running the bases, even though he has already been retired.

Holiday makes a legit attempt to run the bases.

An even easier "out" here is gleaned from the standard case of a bona fide slide (as illustrated above, and seen during the course of a majority of big league double play attempts). If recently-retired runner's interference applied to any case where a baserunner hindered or impeded the following play being made on another runner, then it would be illegal to slide into second (or third, e.g.) base after being forced out: in other words, if the logic here is that Holliday was out for interfering with the play at first base after being retired at second base, then so too should be all runners who slide into second base after the pivot man receives the ball.

Clearly, a runner is allowed to complete a legal base-running maneuver (e.g., a bona fide slide) and he will not be called for recently-retired runner's interference if he is otherwise legal in his running of the bases as he is put out.

Crew Chief Cederstrom signals the protest.

As for the question of whether Holliday is legally allowed to run (return) to first base: Quite obviously R1 Holliday is forced to advance by virtue of the batter's becoming a runner, but if Holliday legitimately believes the force has been removed, he is permitted to try and return to his base of origin. This is a legal base-running maneuver and only becomes a problem if he actually returns to first base—having not yet been put out—while the batter-runner is standing on first base at the same time.

If this wasn't a legal running of the bases, Rule 5.06(b)(2) ("If a runner is forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner and two runners are touching a base to which the following runner is forced, the following runner is entitled to the base and the preceding runner shall be out when tagged or when a fielder possesses the ball and touches the base to which such preceding runner is forced") would not exist, and a runner would be liable to be declared out for abandonment or for some other cause while retreating to an occupied base. The rule is clear: someone must be put out by the defense, not by the umpire.

Similarly, see Rule 5.09(b)(6), which states, in part, "If the forced runner, after touching the next base, retreats for any reason towards the base he had last occupied, the force play is reinstated, and he can again be put out if the defense tags the base to which he is forced." Again, if retreating was an illegal base-running action, then Rule 5.09(b)(6) would not exist.

Accordingly, Holliday is legally permitted to run to first base and, in accordance with the aforementioned Wendelstedt citation, he is not to be declared out simply for completing his legal base-running action.

RED HERRING: If you're looking at Rule 6.01(a)(5) Comment ("If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out...") and believe that retreating to a base precludes any protection from interference, you're getting caught up in semantics that don't affect the interpretation of this play.

Relevant Post: Case Play 2017-4 - Hurdling a Retired Runner [Solved] (4/30/17)

A similar play occurred in Anaheim in April.

The aforementioned Case Play concentrates specifically on the case of recently-retired runner's interference as occurred during an April game in Anaheim.

Succinctly, with Angels baserunner R3 Ben Revere caught in a rundown between third and home, trail runner R1 Cliff Pennington rounded second and prepared to advance to third base. As Oakland pitcher Kendall Graveman ran R3 Revere back to third, retreating runner Revere began a slide, and was tagged out by Graveman before making it to the bag. With Revere out, trail runner R1 Pennington tried advancing to third base, and F1 Graveman tried to jump over the recently-retired Revere in order to make a play on Pennington. As the fielder leapt over Revere, the recently-retired runner completed his unsuccessful "pop-up" slide and, in doing so, essentially upended Graveman as he attempted to complete the double play on Pennington (he was successful).

In answering this Case Play, we found that Revere's slide into third base constituted a legal running of the bases, even though he subsequently made contact with Graveman after being tagged out as Graveman attempted a play on following runner Pennington. In sum, if the umpires ruled runner Revere's slide—including the pop-up element—as part of a legitimate attempt to run the bases, then he did not interfere with Graveman's play on the following runner. If, however, the umpires ruled that the totality of Revere's slide was not a legitimate attempt at running the bases or that he intended to impede Graveman's play at Pennington, then the proper call would be a double play due to recently-retired runner's interference.

Conclusion: As for the play at Fenway Park, since Holliday entered his slide (prior to or concurrent with Bogaerts retiring him) in a legitimate attempt to run the bases—however misguided it might have been—and furthermore did not intentionally hinder the defense, he did not violate retired runner's interference rule 6.01(a)(5) nor any other rule concerning interference.

Epilogue: Just-scored runner's INT.

One More Illustration: If you're still lost, it might be helpful to consider the second aspect of Rule 6.01(a)(5), which concerns "any runner who has just scored." Consider the attached image of a just-scored interference play at Citi Field in 2013. During that play, Marlins baserunner Juan Pierre legally ran through home plate, but ultimately collided with Mets catcher John Buck as Buck attempted to make a play on a following runner. HP Umpire Jim Joyce properly ruled Pierre's teammate (Dobbs) out at second base for Pierre's interference for his having run through the base, and, in doing so, completing his base-running responsibility before making contact with the catcher. The question is not whether the recently-retired or just-scored runner actually impeded or hindered the fielder, but whether he did so in an illegal way, for instance, by virtue of an illegal slide, intentional act, or illegitimate action following the achievement of a base.

Video as follows: