Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
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.
|
1-4, I agree.
5 - See, there's the problem... they DID rule interference. they DID NOT allow the play to stand. Either R1 was ruled out and BR put on first, or BR was ruled out and R1 returned to first. TV did an awful job telling us which runner was left on first base after the play, so I'm not completely sure. I THINK it was the batter.
I was happy for the rally-killing out here... but the umpire in me doesn't understand how this outcome was what they came up with.