Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jimpiano
Not what the rule says.
And remember this was predicated on the rule book, not common sense.
Rule 8-2 Batter-Runner is out:
F. When the batter-runnner interferes with:....a fielder attempting to field a batter ball.
I When an infield fly is DECLARED.
In this case the batter/runner by continuing to run can be called for interference since the fielder is near the base line.
Whether the ball is fair or foul is immaterial to the penalty...Remember the case cited said interferernce to break up a double play:
If the ball is fair the already out batter was guilty of interference, by definition, when he continued to run after being declared out...and, if foul, would be guilty of interference by 8-2-f . In either case the umpire would be justifed in calling the runner nearest the plate out.
I think this is a good example of how answering a narrowly drawn question, while getting the correct answer, does not necessarily mean that, under the same circumstances in a real game, there would not be a reason to make another ruling.
|
Stop avoiding the point of the issue. Drop IFR from your answer, as GM says, it's a red herring and distracting you from the real issue. Make whatever change you feel necessary to remove IFR from the equation and then answer it (call it a bunt, call it not catchable under ordinary effort ... but conceivably catchable enough that the obvious intentional interference comes into play, remove either R3 or R2 from the equation... whatever you need).
The point of this discussion is that it is possible for the offense to gain an advantage via intentional interference within the rulebook, and which way would you call it if presented with exactly that scenario.