Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP25
That happens to be what an esteemed rules guru said to me when I asked him about this. R1 was never in jeopardy of being put out due to the batter's base on balls. Consequently, no play to retire him was possible. As a result, the catcher could not have been hindered or impeded in his attempt to retire a runner if said runner was "unretirable."
The lengths to which some people here go to defend the indefensible never ceases to amaze me. How dare anyone criticize a CWS or Super Regional or Regional umpire!
|
I have posted the rule above. On a 3-2 pitch with the runner running, the catcher cannot attempt to retire r1? He does not no the status of the pitch when he attempts to retire the runner. Suppose the b-r actually does interfere with the throw and that allows r1 to advance to third, will you allow that advance?
Can you cite the rule or just the "esteemed rules guru." This is an unusual play when many rules some at odds with others come into play. I don't think it is as cut and dried as you make it out to be.