Quote:
Originally Posted by KJUmp
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."
|
Its the way I perceive some people will read the rule in spite of the punctuation:
THE RUNNER IS NOT OUT:
M.
When hit by a batted ball while in contact with the base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or a fielder making a play.
Unfortunately, instead of being applied as an exclusion for being hit with a batted ball while on the base, I think some would cite
or a fielder making a play. as a complete and separate application as to a runner being in contact with the base instead of applying to being hit with a batted ball.
Quote:
|
The second, there could possibly be two outs called on the play...not likely but possible?
|
I don't see why not. The offensive players need to be responsible for their actions, intentional or accidental. The accidental action in question, still affected the defenses ability to make a play on a batted ball that more likely than not have been caught for an out.
Okay, now for all those who think it is fair to just ignore the obvious catch since the team would lose a runner more advanced, think about the same play at 1B and Crystal Bustos interferes and Natalie Watley was the BR. Watley running instead of Bustos? Yeah, I see no advantage in that swap.
And obviously, or at least I think it is obvious, we should not have separate rules for areas associatated with different bases.
Does the ruling suck because it seems unfair? Again, there are two teams out there and if one does things right and the other doesn't, why should the latter get the benefit of doubt?