Interp of the Week - Week #2

[bob jenkins]

Carl --

Do you have some support other than the literal reading of 2.00 Infielder that supports the BRD's claim that the catcher is not an infielder for this play?

We already have the IFR example of how that definition is flawed -- couldn't this be another example? It sure seems to me like the intent of the rule (runners should give the fielders an unhindered chance to field the ball) was satisfied.

(And, yes, I recognize that I'm asking you for support when I have none. If it's just a difference in our reading of the book, I can live with that. If there's something I am missing, I'd just like to know.)

Thanks.