Quote:
Originally Posted by SethPDX
No, the batter did not interfere. By the description the batter was standing where a batter normally stands, doing nothing out of the ordinary. If a throw hits the bat, play on. I'd have nothing as well.
And a UIC should not be making up penalties, especially when no rule is violated.
|
What the hell is it with this thread? Does no one read what is actually posted?
If the ruling was interference, the player causing the INT is to be ruled out. We understand that INT probably should not have been called. However, it was and the ruling was upheld. The penalty for INT by a batter is that the batter is ruled out, NOT THE RUNNER. All runners return to the last base touched at the time of the INT.
And Wade is just being his usual incomprehensible self. The "crash" rule is a safety issue. It can be USC in all cases. When the player has the ball, the runner is out regardless of intent to commit USC. All this change does is give the same physical protection to the player without the ball. Granted, the player is not supposed to be in the base path, but there are also rules in place protecting the runner. If you honestly believe a runner has a right to lay out a defender, IMO, you are working the wrong game.