|
It absolutely did JM. I have written in my book "if first throw retires runner, ignore INT" next to 6.06c. The comment there "if, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out -- not the batter."
I know it wasn't the play the catcher originally wanted to make, but it was indeed a play. I realize its not the clearest ruling, but I don't see in here where there is justification to kill it, get the batter, and send them back.
FED, different story of course.
|