[QUOTE=PeteBooth;827432]
Quote:
JM
B1 K'd so we do not have BI. We have interference by an offensive teammate which is a different ruling. The ball should have been immediately dead not delayed dead.
Pete Booth
|
Pete,
I may have overlooked the fact that the batter had just struck out on the pitch when I first replied to kyle's post.
As you point out, and UmpTT suggested earlier in the thread, since the batter is out, someone else is laible to be called out for the (recently retired) batter's interference - except possibly in FED, because, for some reason, has decided to put the burden on the umpire to decide whether or not the defense could have retired a different runner.
UmpTT suggested that in OBR 7.09(e) supersedes 6.06(c) in this case, and I suppose, by analogy he would suggest in FED that 8-4-2g (the "retired runner" clause) supersedes 7-3-5. By that logic, the ball is immediately dead.
What bothers me about that train of thought is that a violation of 7.09(e) or 8-4-2g requires INTENT to interfere with the throw on the part of the offending offensive player interfering party, while under 6.06(c) and 7-3-5, intent is irrelevant. Essentially, the criteria for determining whether or not the offensive player did, in fact, interfere, are materially different.
I believe the intent is that - even though the batter may have just struck out - 6.06(c) or 7-3-5 govern, both the criteria for determining interference AND keeping the ball in play if the catcher DOES manage to get off a throw despite the interference and wait to see if that throw directly retires a runner before calling TIME!
I've checked all my reference materials and none of them clarifies whether your and UmpTT's interp is correct or my alternative interp is.
Yours and UmpTT's could very well be, but do you see the problem I suggest?
JM