Quote:
Originally posted by Tex
Keep in mind; all 3 players (catcher, 1st baseman, and batter-runner) are in fair territory, with the batter-runner trying to continue to 2nd base. Therefore, there is an implied intent that the batter-runner is interfering with the defensive player in making a play. Batter-runner is out for interference.
|
Think about this: What umpire could even remotely believe a BR advancing in fair territory was going to continue to 2B?
If a BR in fair territory is going to advance to 2B, they would most have to stop at 1B to make a less than 90 degree turn toward 2B and what happens when the BR stops on the base and the ball is in the circle? That's right, the LBR is in effect and the player would be ruled out.
But you say they don't have to stop, they can run through the bag and then head toward 2B. True, but how would an umpire know that unless s/he could see the future?
It's the coulda, woulda shoulda guesses that kill umpires. Can probabilities be taken into consideration? Absolutely. Should they be the sole basis for an absolute ruling? I don't think so.
Furthermore, even if the umpire judges the runner may be going to 2B, wouldn't that play be on a RUNNER beyond 1B? So how does the 3' lane violation affect a play not being made on a BATTER-RUNNER at 1B?
Sorry, but this interpretation is ludicrous.
JMHO,
[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Oct 31st, 2004 at 09:12 AM]