Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
ASA did not make it "legal" for a retired batter to proceed to 1B. They only ruled that running to 1B after being ruled out is not to be ruled as interference. Therefore, the next question is what legal running lane? A running lane violation is there to allow a defensive team to make a play without worrying about a BR's position. Being in a running lane provides only the BR protection from being called for interference on a ball being thrown to 1B in an attempt to put out the BR.
The 3' lane has no bearing on this play.
|
re: "legal" - that's why I said "legal, of sorts"
However, notice
ASA 8-8. THE RUNNER IS OUT. P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. ... A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner on the dropped third strike rule.
Didn't the rule writer just refer to B2 in the play being discussed here as a "batter-runner"? Does that give B2 in this play the status of a BR for all
other rules that may apply to the play?
re: 3" lane having no bearing. True, the only reason I mentioned it was to make it clear that B2 was not doing anything out of the ordinary that could be construed as intent in trying to interfere with the throw.
In any case, I've kinda come full circle on this. It think no-call, play on, is correct since the first part of 8-8P says that the retired player needs to
intentionally interfere for the call to be made.