Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul L
So it seems that the letter of the rule supports Canary's original postion. But the consensus of the worthies of this forum seems to be that everyone knows that if the runner is just doing what you would expect, then inadvertent interference is not an out.
|
Although "intentional" was dropped, the word interference was not dropped and that still requires an "act that".
So it does not support Canarys original position at all.
His position is that if the catcher beans a runner with the ball, the runner is out. While that my make for a funner game in some respects, thats not the case. The runner still must commit interference for there to be interference.
The question is .. what did the runner do to interfere?
Canary's answer is shaded towards his view point, but still the same as: "Failed to dodge the catchers throw"
Thats not interference. Thats a bad throw.