Swan Swan H wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: I'm sure the rule is what it is, but why aren't the runners on 2nd and 3rd? That's where they would be were there no interference and Thole got thrown out at first. Because to remove the incentive for the offensive team to commit an intentional interference the remedy is that all runners return to their original bases. Think about a situation where the bases are loaded w/1 out, bottom 9, tie game. Batter hits what looks like an easy 6-4-3 DP but the runner on 1st decides to simply play free safety and "intercepts" the throw to 1st. Yeah he's already out, but without the 'runners return' rule his team wins the game. The umps, in that situation, also have the option to call the batter out when the interference is so obviously intentional - but you get the idea. If they call that a DP it's three out and no runs score anyway. It would never happen to end a game, but if it happens with none out the run from third should score whether it's intentional or not, since they didn't make a play on that runner. I'm not saying it's not the rule, just that I disagree with the reasoning behind it. Yeah, this scenario doesn't justify the rule. (And any runner who can advance far enough down the line to intercept a relay from second base to first but won't simply just safely touch first is insane beyond Jimmy Piersall levels and needs to be kept far away from baseball diamonds.) Calling the batter out and letting the runners accept their advance to the bases they'd have safely advanced to had the play been successfully and cleanly completed seems to make sense. The Mets followed up by making the philosophical point moot with a madly courageous double steal, but of course failed to score.