|
You guys are on to what had me bugged about this play.
Sorry if my description of the play was not clear.
I'll try to clarify some of the questions.
B2 was attempting to run to 1B on a dropped 3rd strike, until the PU re-stated she was out. She then slowed to a stop to return to her dugout but had not yet left her legal running lane. F4 was covering 2B on the attempted steal (who knows if the thought it was a steal or a force) by R1. F2 picked up the ball, knew B2 was out because of the umpire's call, and attempted to throw to second to put out R1. She was off balance, and her throw hit B1 in the arm, and rebounded back into foul territory, but did not go into dead ball territory. B2 made no intentional move to block or get in the way of the throw.
ASA case plays do clarify that the mere act of a retired batter running to 1B on a third strike, and thereby drawing a throw from the catcher, is not interference. However, it does not address the question raised by this play.
I think the initial instinct of most ASA umpires would be "dumb catcher" or "bad throw, catcher" play on.
However, B2 is NOT a BR, and does NOT have a true legal right to be where she is. However, once ASA makes it legal, of sorts, for the retired runner to run to 1B, shouldn't she also, then, take on the legal status of a runner for such plays?
The more I thought about this play, it seemed to be interference, since it is not drawing a throw where there is not play at 1B on the retired batter (which is what the case plays address), but it is getting hit by a throw from the catcher while out of the batter's box.
However, in a game, I would have probably ruled live ball, play on.
|