View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 15, 2003, 05:11pm
Warren Willson Warren Willson is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Re: Clarification-

Quote:
Originally posted by Bainer
Sorry for any confusion, but it was the CATCHER, not R2 who was airborne and prone.

The catcher lept for the ball behind the plate, on the line (3b extended), and was still up in the air when caught by R2.


Bainer.
No confusion, for most of us at least. Your original, unedited post quite specifically mentioned that it was the catcher who was airborne and 5 feet from the plate down 3rd base line extended.

FWIW, I think both you and the rules committee each made a great call - yours in far more difficult circumstances, though. The parallel with 7.09(f) is clear and was well noted.

I thought their reference to 6.06c was a bit obscure. It appears as though they referred to that passage merely to explain why the runner who had already scored wouldn't be out absent any intent. They had previously covered that option by saying you couldn't call that runner out because he had already legally scored.

Instead they might have used the 6.06c penalty for regular batter interference to partially parallel the penalty on your play - if the runner being played on is retired the out stands, and if not the runner returns.

At least they resisted the temptation to resort to an already overworked 9.01(c)!

The umpires who called interference on the play need to consider that the rules require deliberate INTENT to interfere with a thrown ball. I thought your scenario clearly ruled that out on the throw to F2, and the BR evidently didn't attempt to advance until AFTER the R2 had set the catcher down again and he subsequently fell to the ground. It could be argued, therefore, that R2's influence over the following play had already ended before the BR attempted to advance. Maybe it was the catcher's own disorientation that caused him to lose his feet, and nothing R2 had previously done need be implicated in that at all.

What's more, since there was NO double play possible when the alleged interference occurred, the two umpires who had BOTH R2 and the BR out (like the catcher) simply wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

Good call

Cheers
__________________
Warren Willson
Reply With Quote