I agree that whether or not it was an IFR situation and whether or not the ball was caught can impact future possible rulings resulting from the play given, but I don't see how they have any impact on the actual ruling for the situation described.
We have interference by the BR prior to reaching 1B. Dead ball. BR out, if obviously intended to prevent a DP, R2 out. R1 scores. 8-2-F.
If IFR, or if the ball is actually caught, then 8-7-P, but same result. Dead ball. BR out. R2 out. R1 scores.
The only contention, it seems to me, is a "what if" that is not covered by the question... What if the defense appeals R1 for leaving early on a caught fly? If the fly was caught, then honor the appeal, 3rd out, run does not score. If the fly was NOT caught, then deny the appeal.
I do have a question, though, suppose this was the bottom of the 7th, tie score and IF was called or should have been called (IOW, ball catchable with ordinary effort, but was not due to the interference)?
Is (as was suggested earlier in this thread) application of 10-1-L supportable?
Note that 10-1-L reads
Quote:
|
The umpire will not penalize a team for any infraction of a rule when imposing the penalty would be an advantage to the offending team.
|
This would read to me that the umpire may choose to NOT impose the penalty, not that the umpire may choose to "set things right" in the more general sense.
The penalty here is not the problem. It is the timing of the interference. The offense benefitted by interfering AFTER the score, not by having a penalty imposed.
[Edited by Dakota on Feb 24th, 2006 at 12:26 PM]