|
Fri May 27, 2005, 07:38am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another NFHS situation from last night's game. Bases loaded with 0 outs. A grounder is hit to the shortstop position. R2 runs over the SS while he is attempting to make the play. I kill the ball and call R2 out. R3 must return...no run scored, we got that, but do you place the BR on first, which then forces R1 to second leaving the bases loaded and just one out?
|
|
Fri May 27, 2005, 07:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Since B4 became BR, he must be put on first if he's not declared out. Any runners forced to advance, do so.
|
|
Fri May 27, 2005, 09:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
If this was a slow developing play, I might not give the defense the double play.
If it was a routine ground ball and F6 just tried to tag R2 on the way by, the defense is getting the benefit of the doubt and getting 2 outs. OBR seems to say that if the hinderance is intentional the runner and BR are to be called out. 7.08(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire's judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out.
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
|
|
Fri May 27, 2005, 12:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri May 27, 2005, 06:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
FED clearly wants the benefit of the doubt to go to the defense in this kind of case. I think Bob is right that FED has the language of a double play "possibility" - if it was possible, call it.
In the given case, if R2 runs into F6 AS he is fielding the ball, clearly F6 is near the baseline. As I'm envisioning the play, I've almost certainly got R2 and BR out for the interference, R1 and R3 return with 2 outs. Strong presumption in favor of the defense here.
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
