Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef
So, you are saying, by rule, that if a runner is forced out at 2nd and then just stops advancing or very slowly continues in base path and the ss fires to first and the runner is hit in the head by the ball, you got nothing?
|
I don't "have" anything other than a live ball
Quote:
|
I respectfully disagree. My belief in the rule is that her act is that she didn't act. A retired runner does not have a right to stand in the base path. And I've called this exactly never bc I've never seen it but I can say this, I used to do if when I played. I'm 6'5, 300lbs and when I remain in base path and lolly my way along after being put out, I was damn sure doing it to interfere with throw to first, so yes, it does happen.
|
A retired runner has every right to not be forced to act in a manner that possibly interferes and that is exactly what could happen if s/he left the determined path
A runner staying the course is actually doing the fielder a favor. That way the fielder KNOWS where the runner is supposed to be so s/he can throw the ball where the runner is not, much like a catcher knowing to throw around a batter and not expecting the batter to move out of the catcher's way. For this reason, I would disagree with Andy's assertion that just standing there or moving slowly alone could be acts of INT
At the UIC clinic in 2007, one of the plays giving an example of how the rule change effected how INT should be rule involved a relay throw to 1B for the back end of a deuce. Two scenarios were offered. The first was the ball hit the R1. The second was R1 fell and then stood up in front of the throw and was hit.
The ruling in the first scenario is no INT and the ball remains live. On the second, the runner standing up and hitting the ball was considered an act of INT even though it was unintentional.