Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
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.
|
Actually, it says "offensive player", but I don't want to be too precise
. The need to define "play" came from the constant bickering over the term when used in the LBR. If you make it broader, you are going to have umpires stating that simply turning and looking toward a runner in an attempt to "hold" them on the base would be a play and release all other runners.
Quote:
|
I agree, but that is no excuse for using the word "interfere" when definitional interference is not possible.
|
Where does it say that?
Quote:
|
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.
|
But there is no BR, so 8.2.F does not apply which, I think, is what some folks are missing here.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Which I could understand happening once, ONCE!
Quote:
|
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.
|
No one is suggesting the contact be ignored especially if intentional. There is always USC available and I wouldn't have a problem with an umpire telling a coach, "There is no INT because it is a foul ball. However, that does not mean your runner doesn't have to avoid contact. Failure to do so in the future may come with penalties."