[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking of a straw man argument???

This clarification refers to a runner which gave up on the play and ACTED in a manner other than that natural to the game.

If this runner, retired or not, stays the course toward the base and does nothing more, it is not INT though there are umpires and coaches who now believe it is because of the different wording.

BTW, I have a problem with a couple of the rulings in this clarification. In #2 & #4, it mentions a batter and runner who has scored (R2), respectively, being hit with a ball thrown in the direction of home for a play.

Base on the presumption that both incidents actually caused the defense to not get an out, the rulings are correct. #2 sort of alludes to this point, but #4 doesn't. In #4, it simply states that R2 was hit by the throw. What if the throw is already beyond the plate and the C never had a chance to get the runner out? Are you still going to rule INT?

Absolutely not.