|
Pete, that's absolutely crazy. If the batter interfered, and we kill the play automatically, we could be giving the offense the benefit of that interference. Consider numerous other cases.
1) R3 is too far off third base, batter gets in the way of the throw, but the throw beats the runner back to third and she's out. In your philosophy, you'd rather call the play dead and leave that runner on third. Awful.
2) R1 stealing second, batter gets in the way, but the throw beats the runner and she's out. Again - you want to put the runner back on first. Also awful.
The rule, as written, protects the defense from losing anything from the interference, while still allowing them to get whatever out(s) they might have gotten anyway. There is NO damage to the defense caused by the rule as it's written today.
Your case of a double steal - look at it two ways - once without the interference, once with it. Without interference, F2 throws down, they get the out at 2nd, and the runner probably scores. With the interference, F2 throws down... if they still get the out at 2nd, the run probably scores (Exactly the same scenario as if the interference never occured)... if they DON'T get the out at 2nd, the batter is out and the runners go back to 1st and 3rd (Better than the sitch they had without interference). There is NO penalty or damage to the defense from this rule.
|