Thread: Situation #2
View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 13, 2007, 01:22am
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
B4, with an 0-1 count, cannot possibly become a BR. The only way B4 could possibly earn the right to 1B would be a HBP and that is an immediate dead ball with no further play available.
...or as soon as B4 legally hits a fair ball...
in which case R2 wouldn't be "stealing" 2B - R2 would be "advancing" to 2B.

Ok, so I'm playing word semantics...

But what I'm getting at is that rule 8 doesn't apply because B4 isn't a BR. B4 is a batter. Rule 7 applies.

And if Rule 7 applies, then I get the option of using:
7.6.R: when intentionally interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box.
or
7.6.S: When interfering with a play at home plate.

I guess what it boils down to is that if "intentionally" was removed from 7.6.Q and from 8.2.F.3, then shouldn't it be removed from 7.6.R as well?

I could rule that there was no intent, therefore 7.6.R doesn't apply and my call is safe - or I could rule that there was interference (intent or not, it was a play at home plate!), therefore 7.6.S applies and I have an out.

All this said, "rulebook right, ballfield wrong." In all practicality, I got me an out on B4, whether she's B4 or BR4. It's obvious to me that the NUS wants the "intent" of the rule (pardon the pun) to get B4 out on an interference call...
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.
Reply With Quote