Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
You're assuming that the ball would have been caught. You can't assume that. The only other out you can get is the BR.
|
What rules basis do you have for saying you can't assume that? The more "normal" 2-out interference is with a runner committing intentional interference to break up a double play - you "assume" that the 2nd out would have been made in that case... why is this play any different? The rules simply say the Umpire is to rule a 2nd out as well if in his judgement the interference prevented a double play. This sitch is no different (and is also supported by the common sense idea that the offense should not benefit from interference).
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”
West Houston Mike
|