[QUOTE=PeteBooth]
Quote:
This OP IMO is a 9.01(c) application
Why!
Suppose F2 asks the PU to appeal the check swing and the call of ball 4 now becomes a strike. If that's the case then INTENT goes "out the window"
Assuming a "clean catch" by F2 you do not need INTENT to call BI.
As Rich says B1 does not have to say may I but he also has to be aware if there is another possible play.
Here's a little twist.
Let's say we have R2 ONLY. R2 is stealing and B1 receives ball 4 and as F2 is friing to third he walks right in front of F2.
For the most part there is no "time limit" for B1 to get to first base. He is entitled to it but he cannot interfere with another play. Therefore, if there is a play at third, he could either wait a beat or simply walk around F2 on route to first base.
If there is no check swing involved and B1 receives ball 4 I agree B1 needs to do something blatant in order to be called for interference.
While not Specifically mentioned in the book perhaps this OP is a good case to rule a delayed "weak interference" meaning if the check swing ball call is not reversed we have R1 / R2.
Should the ball sail over F4/F6's head then R2 now R3 is returned to second base.
As mentioned there is nothing specific on this. Also, it's probably not third world either.
Pete Booth
|
It's not 9.01(c). There are rules specifically written to deal with interference by a runner. Interference requires INTENT in this situation. You can't use 9.01(c) cause you dislike the rule or think it's unfair.
If the pitch is called a strike on appeal, then the batter is still the batter and you can have interference without intent. It may not be "fair," but it is what it is.