Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
I don't see any specific exclusion. In each case under 8.2.F, they do not specifically apply. If the case applied, then you would need to apply that rule. Since none specifically applies (none relates to a batter-runner still in the box who interferes with a throw), then it is not specifically excluded.
|
THE BATTER-RUNNER IS OUT.
F. When the batter-runner interferes with
3. a thrown ball while outside of the batter's box.
Since there is no alternative offered, that sounds pretty exclusive to anything other than the BR within the confines of the BB. If it wasn't meant to be exclusive, why is the BB even included in the rule?
Quote:
|
If we look at the definition of interference
|
How many times have we said a definition in itself is not a rule? It is a quantifier to be used i the application of a rule.
Quote:
|
To not rule this interference would be clearly wrong, IMO.
|
Couldn't agree more.
Quote:
|
While this might be considered a hole in rule 8.2-F, 8.7-J(3) does allow a ruling that can be supported; I would use it, and doubt it wouldn't be supported by the NUS if protested or challenged at that level.
|
Yeppers