The Official Forum - View Single Post

GarthB · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 14, 2005, 05:27pm

Quote:

Originally posted by jicecone

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB

Quote:

Originally posted by jicecone

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB
jicecone writes: 1.Hits the runner, we have interference. Wether it was intentional or not , it was interference.

I'm not a FED expert by any means, but how does this jive with FED 8-4-2(g)

Any runner is out when he:

intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball...

Garth, I agree with what your saying but I based this upon two rulings:

1.BRD2005 Sit 320 pg 204 bottom

"Except: OFF INTERP 224-320: Rumble: On a force play a runner hit by a thrown ball between bases is guilty of interference if he did not slide or [presumably] run well away from the fielder making the throw. (News #1,3/98)"

As further stated 30 feet from first may be a different scenario.

This is also as stated in Childress's book, 2004 "The Usual Suspects", Chapt I pg 12. Play Ruling 11. "Result: Double Play"

Carl states in BRD2005 pg 205,
"Note 342-320: The Rumble ruling is consistent and illuminating, therefore helpful. But it is not definitive, for it leaves an important question unanswered: How close does the runner have to be to the "forced" base before the umpire rules interference?"

He does state further on though, "Let the umpire judgement carry the day"

Given upon what you based your opinion, I am surprised at your conclusion.

It still appears to me that unless something "special" is happening, the rule wins out. "Iintentional or not, it is still interference" will prove to be incorrect the majority of the time.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 14th, 2005 at 03:42 PM]

My conclusion?

As stated previously, I tend to agree with you and what is written.

However, I can also see how one could conclude that at 30 feet from second base, the runner could very well be, "trying to alter the play". It also seems to me that others who are far more respected than me in interpreting these rules, belive this to be the case also.

Im am very open to getting the correct ruling.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I thought your conclusion that was that it didn't matter whether interference with a thrown ball was intentional or not.

I don't know upon what Rumble based his ruling. I don't know if if was in response to a question or in response to a specific play. Both could have included information that altered his opinion. I would agree that one would probably have to witness this play to ascertain what the runner was doing, but since there in no mention of an act that could interpreted as intentional interference in the original post, I would rule no interference.