Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GarthB
I can only surmise you have never heard Jim explain this rule or attended a pro school or camp at which this was covered.
Jim's explanation is competely contrary to your assumption. The MLBUM ruling is competely contrary to your assumption.
|
I make no assumptions. I am only going by what I read. I have never heard Mr. Evan's explain the rule, but I can read what he wrote concerning the pertinent rule in his Official Baseball Rules, Annotated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim Evans, page 211
Historical Notes: In 1877, the rules stated that a baserunner struck by any batted ball shall be declared out. The rules of 1920 amended this concept to provide that the runner was not to be declared out if a fair ball goes through an infielder and hits a runner immediately back of him.
After the revision and recodification in 1950, the rule included balls that had been deflected. It further explained what the rulesmakers had in mind by stating that runners were not to be called out if the umpire was convinced that the ball passed through or by the infielders and no other infielder had a chance to make a play on the ball. Of course, if the runner deliberately kicked or interfered intentionally with any such ball, he would be declared out. (Emphasis added)
|
Further, from Jaksa/Roder page 96,
Quote:
|
However, it is not interference if a batted ball touches him after passing a fringe infielder and no other infielder had a play opportunity..., unless he touches such ball intentionally. (Emphasis added)
|
When addressing the exception to the runner being out by virtue of being hit by a batted ball, both Evans and Jaksa/Roder clearly use the specific phrase "infielder" when referring to another member of the defensive team having an opportunity to field the ball.
I don't know how Jim Evans explained the interference rule, but if he explained it to mean that if a batted ball passes by an infielder and contacts a runner (unintentionally), that the runner is out if an outfielder has an opportunity to play on the ball, his explanation doesn't square with what he or Jaksa/Roder wrote.
Even the OBR state "infielder" in the relevant part of the rule, "that no other
infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball."
I don't know how much clearer the rule can be on this?