Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Okay, let's stop here. Was hoping someone would come back with this after my previous post.
Speaking ASA
Fact of life:
8.7.J.1 stats it is INT when a runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball, which this is.
The Effect: The ball is dead. All other runners must return.
The Note: When runners are called out for INT, the BR is awarded 1B
The Exception to the Note: If the INT prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, fair or foul, with ordinary effort, the batter is also out.
Assumption:
8.8.M could be considered an exception though it is worded addressing being actually hit by the batted ball.
My interpretation:
RS 33.A.1.c gives the runner relief from vacating the space for the defender to catch the ball. It does not give the runner absolute exemption from commiting an act of INT simply because s/he kept contact with the base while not being in control of their own body.
|
Great job on summarizing of all the applicable ASA rules & RS citings pertinent to the sitch.....and all in the same post.
After being off the mark on pretty much every opinion I've had on this play, I think I've got it straight in my mind.
I have two questions (hopefully my last). The first has to do with 8.8.M. When you say it "
could be considered the exception...." as umpires are we on solid ASA ground if we applied it that way in a game? I'm not questioning the statement, I just want to make sure I'm correctly understanding the way you used the word
"could."
The second, there could possibly be two outs called on the play...not likely but possible?