Quote:
Originally posted by DNTXUM P
The only variation I can see is since B2 was already out, you could possibly make a case of intereference by B2...
|
Quote:
Originally posted by SRW
Am I missing something?
No, I don't agree.
B2 is out, D3K didn't apply. (ASA 8-1-B)
F2 tried to make a play on the runner R1 stealing 2B, and B2 (now a retired batter) interfered with the play, so the runner closest to home is out. Her location (fair/foul/lane) and the tag are irrelevant. (ASA 8-7-P).
|
C'mon, guys... the runner running on a (presumed) D3K is specifically excepted from the retired runner drawing a throw interference rule. You even reference the rule. And, if you are basing your argument on the fact that the 3K rule does not apply here since 1B was occupied, I ask you - how else would a
retired runner running on D3K be an issue? IOW, the rule is obviously intended to cover the situation where the runner "thinks" she can run.
And, wrt interference with the play on R1... that would have to be an intentional act (other than merely running).
Quote:
Originally posted by TexBlue
If the BU still has DDB signal up, this would be placing the runner in jeopardy. You can't indicate Obstruction and then call the runner out while you are still telling the offense it's still in effect. If this is the situation, I would agree with the way the umpires settled it. If the DDB signal was not still indicated, there are 3 outs.
|
This might be worth some discussion. Certainly the BU was indicating SOME call with the DDB, and that call was later reversed. But, even if the OBS (supposed) was on the BR (who wasn't a BR), you can't obstruct a retired runner.
I'd be inclined to let the outs stand and possibly eject the catcher. Another thought is if F2 obviously intentionally nailed the BR, dead ball for flagrant misconduct, eject F2, return R1 to 2B.