Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
I don't disagree with anything you state here, Mike. But I want to discuss a different philosophy that could result in a different result. And to generate further discussion.
We know, and have discussed over and over, that the rulebook does not and cannnot cover every possible scenario, exception, what-if play. We, as umpires, are expected to rule on these exceptions to the rules based on the most similar applicable rule, to apply the intent of the rules. Some rules are meant to be narrowly construed as exceptions to the bigger picture; others are meant to help understand the bigger picture.
8.7-M is specific to call interference if a coach runs and draws a throw. 8.7-P is specific to call interference if an already retired runner (or scored runner) continues to run and draws a throw. The exception allows a batter-runner (sic) who is entitled to run on the D3K; we also know, because the case plays say so, that what "they" really allow is a retired batter who has NO right to run on the D3K to run anyway. But that ends at first base, because so does the inappropriate designation of batter-runner!!
Does any rule, case play, or approved ruling specifically allow ANYONE ELSE on the offense who is not currently a runner or batter-runner to simulate legally running the bases and draw a throw? Suppose (yes, third world, but making a point, I hope), that the on-deck batter crossed with the batter who is running with no right to run, and the on-deck batter completed running the to first, and then continued to run to second and draws a throw?? Would you conclude and rule then that since the on-deck batter doesn't meet the specific criteria in 8.7-M or 8.7-P that it was a DMC?? How about if a player ran out of the offensive dugout and started running the bases while the catcher was chasing the passed ball, so that F2 didn't realize it wasn't a legal runner?
I strongly suspect that in these more extreme cases that you would apply 10.1; and I also suspect that your result would be the same penalty as 8.7-M and 8.7-P, because they are the most similar rulings that would guide you in determining the proper result. (Yeah, you would likely have an unsportsmanlike ejection, too, and maybe a coach or two to follow, but that's in addition to the play ruling.)
So, we have two rules that spell out the result if the two most likely categories of offensive team members draw a play where none should exist. We have one very specific and case-play clarified exception; and this play in the OP isn't that, either. Why would we not consider the NEXT most likely category of offensive player that has no right, rhyme or reason to run as an attempt to create the same effect ruled interference by the two most similar rulings?
|