Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PeteBooth
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.
|
The jury cannot still be out. Either the act, AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED, is interference, or it is not interference. It cannot BECOME interference after we learn that the throw ends up being uncorked into CF. If it was not interference, play on. If it was, the play was dead long before the ball was thrown. You CAN NOT let what happens to the ball come into your thinking at all.
I don't get trying to use 9.01c at all here. It is VERY CLEAR that this runner, at the time of his actions, was a runner. Period. Runners are not required to avoid throws, they are only required to not intentionally interfere with them. Period. If something else happens (check swing appeal) that makes this guy a batter, it doesn't retroactively change his status. It's his status at the moment of his action that matters.
PS - Bob's caseplay seems RIGHT up the alley on this one. Not sure why you would not apply that ruling to this play even though it's not EXACTLY the same. The rule is exactly the same, as is the intent of the rulesmakers.