Quote:
Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by w_sohl
Defense got the out at 2nd so there was no interference. Why would you then penalize the offense and send the runner back to third when they did nothing wrong?
I think you are missing the point. The throw can still be decent but R1 beats the throw and is safe but because interference is called we NOW rule the batter out and send runners back to their TOI bases.
Example; B1 swings hard and the momentum carries him / her right in front of plate where F2 has to rearrange his throwing pattern. AT THIS POINT we as PU signal and say "That's Interference". Let's stop - All we know at this point is that B1 interfered,. F2 however, makes a great play and fires a strike to F4/F6 anyway where they either get R1 or not.
I think the interference should kill the ball right then and there irregardless if the defense makes a play or not. All we know when we signal interference is that B1 did something against the rules. Also, as long as the catch is a clean one, Batter interference does not require INTENT. If B1 interfered, he/she interfered.
IMO, the rule-makers goofed on this rule. The ball should be immediately dead as with most interference calls.
Example; R2 1 out. Ground ball to F6. R2 runs into F6, but F6 recovers in time to STILL make the play (I think we all have seen this, I know I have so it's not third world). Do we wave off the interference because F6 still made the play? Answer NO. As soon as we signal interference - the ball is immediately dead and we penalize. IMO this should be the same rule governing B1 and F2.
We have seen players make some great plays especially at the Varsity / Collegiate level, so it's not uncommon to see players even though they are interfered with make the play anyway. However, with the exception of CI (CO for FED) and batter's interference the ball is delayed dead as opposed to immediately dead. I can understand this concept with regards to CI but not batter's interference.
Just because F2 made the play anyway doesn't mean he wasn't interfered with.
Pete Booth
|
JMO here.
By killing it immediately you may be taking away 2 maybe even 3 outs for the defense. One example being: R2 and R3, no outs, 3-2 on the batter. B1 swings at the ball in the dirt but interferes with the catcher on his backswing while making a throw down to third where he nails him. The BR is now running to 1st on the missed 3rd strike, F5 now throws to 1st and gets him on the force, Now, R2 is now going to third on the throw from F5 to F3. I know, a little crazy, but, I have seen other things happen.
Another example would be same count with the squeeze play on.
If you kill the play immediately, you penalize the offended team!
I feel that if the catcher was able to get off a good enough throw with the batters interference to retire the runner, continue action from there.