View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 13, 2011, 06:19am
mbyron mbyron is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
For those less interested in commentators than the play:

1. The pitch was ball 4, so the batter became a runner and no longer liable for batter interference.
2. He might, however, be liable for runner interference if he intentionally hindered a throw.
3. Although F2 threw down, there was no play on R1 because he was forced to advance by the award to the batter. It's always on the defense to know the situation and whether a play is possible.
4. Since BR did not intentionally interfere -- he was permitted to move toward 1B to take his award, and shouldn't reasonably have expected a throw -- he was not called for INT.
5. The umpires presumably allowed the play to stand because F2 risked a throw without possibility of a play and there was no infraction by the BR.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote