|
|
|
Wed Apr 19, 2006, 04:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Uh, Steve.... What?!?!
Yes, he's retired, and no, he's not required to go back to first. Did you misread? In any of these scenarios, in either ruleset, I'm pretty comfortable saying that you have to have INTENT to rule interference.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson 
|
|
Wed Apr 19, 2006, 04:32pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I was referring to Tim's other scenario on the line drive to F6. I thought my post would be immediately underneath his, but there are several between us. I wasn't talking about the original play.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25
|
|
Wed Apr 19, 2006, 04:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Or.....
"If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgement of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. Which is also in 8-4-2g. I suppose our "judgement" would be the definition of interference, in Tee's original sitch, the retired runner is more than 1/2 way to second. In the casebook 19 sitch, the retired runner is not 1/2 to second. Now, should that information change our "judgement" on the interference? The rule book definition of interference is..."an act by the offensive team which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play...". Is intent implied? Bob P.
__________________
Bob P. ----------------------- We are stewards of baseball. Our customers aren't schools or coaches or conferences. Our customer is the game itself.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Play-by-Play Commentary | FC IC | Basketball | 2 | Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:28am |
| CBS play-by-play announcers: should they all be fired? | David Clausi | Basketball | 6 | Mon Mar 27, 2000 11:56pm |
Hybrid Mode
