Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson
thank you mr Mbcrowder.
mr Booth why are you still stuck on it being BI if its Ball 4? hes a BATTERRUNNER. BI rules dont apply, and INTENT comes into play.
if the checkswing is a strike, hes either STILL a batter, or hes OUT ON STRIKES. thats a different set of INT rules, and NO INTENT comes into play.
9.01c? thats a crock, sorry
|
|
That is your interpretation. The only "evidence" to back anything up at this point is Bob Jenkins reference to the comment at the end of 6.10 in the MLBUM
In the original OP (assuming no check swing) I have no problem with a No interference call (assuming no intent)
However, IMO, "the jury is still out" on whether or not R2 will be allowed to advance to third base should F2 sail one over F4/F6's head as a result of the interference.
I think at least from the strict wording of the OP is this:
B1 Interfered.
Since B1 now became a runner we need intent
However what do we do if R2 advances past his forced to base as a result of the interference? Can we rule "weak interference" However, there is no authoritative opinion on this type of play.
We also "added a wrinkle" B1 checked his swing and U1 called it a strike so now the batter is no longer a batter turned runner so can we "retroactively" enforce the interference rule.
You seem to think this is "cut and dry"
IMO, it's not cut and dry, hence 9.01(c) until we receive an "official response" from a known authoritative source. The last time I checked your name was not one of those.
Pete Booth