Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Your response makes me quote wording from Fed 8.4.2g :
"... If a retired runner interferes, and in the JUDGMENT of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out."
"in the judgment of the umpire" is what I am commenting on Carl. If the runner clearly had the base obtained, he is returned to first due to the interference. I don't circumvent the rule as you seemed to indicate I would. However, if there is ANY DOUBT in my mind that the defense may have been able to retire runner a 2nd, I call runner out due to result of interference by retired runner
|
It's a dog that won't come in out of the rain. "If in the umpire's judgment" is your excuse for calling the runner out; that is, for giving the benefit of the doubt to the defense.
As I pointed out last time, that's
your opinion, and it not borne out by the history of the FED statute.
1. From the beginning of the FED book until 1990 (!), the runner was
always returned. (7-3 Penalty) Always: He was NEVER to be out. Of course, during the entire history of the OBR, if a retired batter interfered, the runner if not thrown out was automatically out. Big, BIG difference!
2. In 1990, partly because of continued agitation by rules authorities, historians, and harmonizers (of which I was one), the FED "permitted" the umpire to call the runner out. Note that the FED
still leaves the out up to the umpire (judgment rather than automatic), and they even "weasel" on the language: "two
may [my emphasis] be ruled out" rather than "two
shall be out." (FED 7-3 Pen, 1990 ed.)
3. Here's the comment on the rule change from the 1990 case book. Note carefully the wishy-washy language used to give an umpire FINALLY the right to call out a runner because of the actions of a retired batter. [My comments are inside the brackets.]
"According to the previous rule, on a third strike if a batter interfered with the catcher's attempt to put out a runner, the runner was returned to the base occupied at the time of the pitch. The penalty was determined by the committe to be inadequate. The new rule now permits [not requires] the umpire to call a second out (the runner the catcher attempted to play on) if, in the umpire's judgment, the catcher could have put out the runner had he batter not interfered. [automatic out in OBR/NCAA] This rule is applied if the pitch is a third strike and the batter interferes. ...
Play: With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3 [sic -- grin], R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out R1.
RULING: If, in the umpire's judgment, F2 could hae put out R1, the umpire can [not "shall"] call him out."
4. We dutifully listened to the FED spokesperson explain the new rule at the Texas State Umpires Meeting on January 28, 1990. He made it very clear that the FED was sticking to its guns concerning
any double out called for interference: The umpire must be "sure" ["certain" was my word] a double play was prevented, or only one would be out.
5. OBR: The runner
must be called out. FED: The runner
may be called out. The umpire
can call him out.
That's a significant difference in the rule that
disappears if the umpire does not acknowledge the disparity. That is, those umpires who determine that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense simply allow their dedication to the OBR principle to obtain. I've heard many umpires say, in effect: "Well, if it happens to me, that runner is out unless he's halfway to third when the ball gets to second."
"May" and "can" continue to indicate the umpire must be sure the interference prevented the double play. The FED ump now has the power to call the additional out, but the evolution of the rule obviously pressures him to rule in favor of the offense when he is in doubt.