Quote:
Originally Posted by JefferMC
Obviously, the throw to first was not a play on another runner (unless the runner on first decided to dive back). I just don't see that rulemakers intended that this exception would grant the retired runner more protection from interference than a legitimate BR would. A BR running in fair territory would be guilty of interence if hit in fair territory.
This retired runner WILL get the other runner more than just second that the DMC would otherwise simply by making sure she's in the way of the throw. Yes, I know the throw should never have happened.
|
Jeff,
You are overthinking this way too much. What protection is this player receiving from INT if there wasn't a play at 1B? None, zero, zilch, zip, nada, etc. A running lane is irrelevant since there is no BR!
This is not a difficult rule. The exception ONLY states that an offensive player who has been retired as a batter at the plate is not quilty of interference if they head toward 1B and draw a throw.