Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Also, B2 was never a runner. B2 was never a batter-runner. B2 was only a batter and the rule book says that when a batter affects the play while out of the batter's box is interference and no intention is required.
Like I said before, but the ASA book, Steve M's ruling is probably the most viable. Not because of a particular rule stating so, but the lack of a specific rule addressing the situation.
|
Mike,
I agree with all of this. The rules do not deal with this situation, exactly. Establishing the legal ("by the book") status of the player running to 1B is important to determine which rule applies.
This discussion has helped a lot, and my thinking has solidified on how to call this play. What do you think of this analysis...
The reference to "batter-runner" in the last sentence of 8-8P is the rule-writer merely trying to be clear as to which player he was talking about. It does not bequeath the legal status of BR on this player, although it is interesting.
7-6O1 (batter interference by stepping out of the box) is intended to deal with the conjestion of people around home plate, and does not apply to this situation, with the play being well down the 1B line. The rules give the batter "permission" to start to run to 1B under a couple of erroneous situations (i.e. where the batter "thinks" she is entitled to run, but actually is not). 8-8P is one of those. So is 7-3C8. If, in so doing, she is still in the vacinity of home and she interferes with a play by F2, then 7-6O1 applies. If she is down the base path away from home, no, it does not. The other rules dealing with runner / BR interference then come into play.
While she never acquired the legal status of "runner," it still seems to me that 8-8P (1st sentence) can be applied, since it is intended to deal with a retired player getting in the way of a defensive play. This rule requires intent. And, by the exception stated in 8-8P, the player as a "legal right" (i.e. it is not illegal) to be running toward 1B.
Therefore, by rule, she cannnot be guilty of interference on a throw to 1B just by running to 1B, and, by inference as to the intent of the rules, for any other interference with a thrown ball, it must be intentional.