Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbcrowder
But it appeared to me that even though the runners actions were clearly what one might normally call interference, the timing of it left me in severe doubt as to whether that interference actually interfered with anything. He had the INTENT to break up a double play, of course... but it didn't appear to me that there was any chance at a double play. In other words, he prevented a play from happening when that play was not going to happen anyway.
|
I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it 100%. Looking at rule 7.09d its says nothing about if the BR was going to be safe or not. In my opinion F4 was in the process of making a play on the B1 and R1 who was already out interfered with this play.
7.09d
- Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;
Rule 7.09(d) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.
Here is a brain teaser....
Assume the situation was 0 out R1 and R3, instead of 1 out with R1 & R3. Same thing happens, do you call out R3 or the BR? So you would either have 2 outs and R3 or 2 outs and R1. Which is correct? I would lean towards 2 outs with R1....
I ask because 7.09f states "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter-runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter-runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference."