View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 18, 2018, 07:58am
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephrt1 View Post
OK, understood. But what do you do if you don't think the batter-runner got in the way in "an attempt to prevent an out at the plate"?

__________________________________________________ _______

There are 2 other possible ways of supporting only the batter-runner being called out with interference at the plate.

1. Rule 8.2 is headlined as "The batter-runner is out". When you then go to 8.2.G it states if this is an attempt to prevent an out at home plate Effect; "the runner is also out." Because the word also is used, this implies, but could have been more clearly stated, that the batter runner is out "when the batter runner interferes"

2. RS 33-A.1: reads: Runner interference includes - A runner or batter-runner who interferes with a fielder executing a play.

I would interpret both of these statements to have the batter runner out for the situation in the OP, and if the umpire judges the batter-runner attempted to prevent the out at home plate, a 2nd out would be called on the runner (8.2.G).
I don't disagree, but my point is there is no rule to suppert the RS. An RS should be supported by a rule.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote