|
Since I started this by stating what I thought was the ASA interp, I'll attempt to clarify what I now believe the interp to be.
The rule is without liability to be put out, not without liablility to be declared out due to some infraction of the rules. Hence, the argument raised by mo99 just above is at least intentionally provacative, if not just plain specious.
The issue revolves around the definition of interference. Interference must be with a play. In all cases for the offense to interfere, it must interfere with a play.
The running lane rule states that the play that must be interfered with is taking the throw at first.
The ASA interp is that since the BR being awarded 1st on a walk may not be put out by a throw to first, that there is, therefore, no play - just a throw to a fielder.
I was asserting that, since the rule does not say the play has to be on the BR in an attempt to retire the BR, that the throw to F3 could be for another play (e.g. attempting to prevent the double steal.)
Since this play does not commence until after the BR has reached 1st (and in fact, may never commence), the umpire should not use that possible future play as the basis for a running lane violation interference call on the BR.
And, BTW, this in no way means that the BR cannot be called out for interference after receiving a walk - only that it cannot be for a running lane violation, it would have to be intentional interference with the thrown ball, for example.
I realize Mike and Steve are both fed up with this topic, but I would appreciate further correction if I still have it wrong.
[Edited by Dakota on Sep 4th, 2003 at 10:52 AM]
__________________
Tom
|