Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Well, being one of the last folks involved in the wording of the definition of "play" in the rule book, I guess I should take exception to this comment  . However, I do not as the reason the wording is precise is to make sure umpires don't go off in multiple directions reading into a rule as we see happen so often. |
I agree a definition was needed, but the absolute requirement for there to be an attempt to retire a runner (as opposed to, for example, hold a runner), is overly precise, IMO. Having said that, I haven't thought through the implications of a broader definition, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Which was a result of these umpires not reading and taking into consideration all aspects of the play and applicable rules. Some saw "ran into F3" and were immediately going to the INT.
|
I agree, but that is no excuse for using the word "interfere" when definitional interference is not possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
The rules to cover this scenario are in place, and as previously noted, must be considered as a whole, not in selected portions. This is one reason why allowing coaches onto the field with a rule book is discouraged.
|
I agree with this in principle, and as I posted earlier, the conclusion I come to is this is a dead ball and a foul ball, even though the BR/B did NOT commit interference as required by the rule.
However, given the other situations where a runner can forfeit protection by a base running violation, I can readily see how even diligent umpires could come to the conclusion that the BR is out due to interference.
Or, since interference is not possible, ignore the contact altogether. Either is a reasonable view of the rules as a whole, and both are wrong.