Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
To start, where is a "throwing lane" defined in the rules?
|
It isn't, but doesn't the fielder have the opportunity to make an out, without the interference from a retired runner? In contrast, the fielder does not have the same protection from a runner.
Quote:
|
Second, how is the runner supposed to know the fielder's intent in the manner s/he is going to relay the throw to 1B?
|
Doesn't matter, she isn't a runner
She is a retired runner. Do we provide any other offensive member, ODB or base coach, any leeway?
Quote:
|
Third, if the runner does "do something" such as veering right or left and STILL gets hit with the thrown ball, are you going to call INT there, also?
|
Only if the throw could have, imo, got the out. If the retired runner is not between the the two defensive players, the no out, egro no int.
Quote:
|
Fourth, where in the rules does it state the a runner must give way or cede any part of the field other than to allow a defender to field a batted ball?
|
Again, difference between runner and retired runner. Two different people, and yes, the same person has different status in an instant. Runner have a lot of rights, retired runners do not.
Quote:
|
Fifth, and this will make your day, if the runner is DOING WHAT S/HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, which is attempt to advance to the base to which s/he is entitled, it is to everyone's, at least those who are not clairvoyant, advantage if the runner stays the course.
|
No, the Kung Pao made my day
. Again, her status changed, she is now a retired runner. Yes, runners have the right to advance, but retired runners have the responsibility to not interfere.
Quote:
. . .
Umpires were instructed, or should have been, to determine whether the player did something to interfere with a play or fielder. In many cases, umpires were instructed to not change the way they made the calls, just drop the "intent" in the manner they saw the play. Interference is a verb and by rule definition, requires an act by an offensive player, team member, umpire or spectator. The failure to act is not interference unless specifically required to do so.
|
To me, and I'm very much not a wordsmith, but when you "prevent," you very much "act." Sometimes doing nothing is an act. As in the Tennessee play, that we now have video, the player kept running, that was an "act." Sometimes players get caught in situations that just suck, and this is one of them.