|
Necro
Sorry to necro this thread, but there are so many bad analogies and allusions....
The retired runner has committed interference, and the batter-runner is out. The end.
"The runner can't disappear" doesn't matter. "The runner was doing what she was supposed to be doing" doesn't matter. Calling out "an act" doesn't matter.
Turn this around. If this was a fielder who attempted to field a ground ball, missed it, and then ran into a runner, no one would use these excuses for the fielder. He would be called for obstruction. If he were lying on the ground, napping, he'd be guilty of obstruction. If he were standing in the basepath like a statue, causing the runner to change his direction to go around, he'd be guilty of obstruction, despite not committing any "act." If your response is "well, standing, lying, napping are all acts," then you've defeated your argument because so is "running bases normally." If your response is "well, this was a thrown ball, not a player," sorry, if the retired runner interferes with a fielder or a throw, it is interference. If the rulemakers wanted us to continue judging intent on throws, they would have left it in. They didn't remove intent from the rule for runners (not yet retired), so why would they remove it for retired runners if they wanted the rule to be called that way?
There is a YT play somewhat similar to this when, with a runner on 1B, a batter bunted the ball into the air and began running. The catcher caught the ball on the fly, so the batter-runner stopped running. That's ALL she did. The catcher threw to first to retire the runner and hit the batter-runner in the back. Umpires ruled retired runner interference after calling a supervisor of officials to confirm the call.
|