what's the call

[Cub42]

The catcher gets the ball, the runner is 70 ft up the line and inside the F/F line. I haven't had any problem passing the required tests at any level of Baseball I have worked. You should look in the mirror and judge yourself before you try and shoot out comments on my abilities.

[kylejt]

Easy now kid.

Go back to the original question. Who was covering first?

[DG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Well, this is not a well crafted question. The runner from 2nd (R2) is crossing the plate - so he has run 160-70 feet while the batter-runner has run 70? I don't think so.

What if the BR fell down getting out of the box? By then R2 could be nearing home, the speedy R2 could be nearing home and the catcher wouldn't bother to throw to 1B, just tag R2 coming in.

But aside from all the assuming, if we accept the most logical play here, we have 2 outs and no runs.

[bob jenkins]

I thought Hawk21 was asking about "an intervening play" in which R2 would return to third, not to second (had the play not resulted in three outs).

Or, he might be trying to say R2 should also be out on BR's interference (interference by a BR before reaching first, with the intent to break up a double play). Especially in this case, the question is poorly worded.

But, since he hasn't been back to clarify, I guess all of us wise ^h^h^h^ smart guys have covered all the bases on this.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Cub42

I guess I should have not assumed that F3 was at 1st. I guess you guys see players frequently just throw the ball without somebody , especially the catcher throw to 1st, without anyone in the vicinity of the base. I also forgot to cover every possibility that could result. Yep, guess you showed me.

you're the one that said the position of F3 has no bearing on the call.

[hawk21]

I didn't want to spell everything out, but I guess I have too. Yes F6's throw to home is a force out for 2nd. out and batter/runner interferes with throw from catcher. Rule-7.09h read the rule. because of obvious interference by batter/runner (NOT RUNNER 7.09g)to breakup a double play, the 3rd. out is R2 who crossed the plate on the interference. if there was zero outs the same thing would result and you would have the batter/runner placed at 1st. base and R1 would be forced to go to 2nd. Remember it doesn't matter where the double play would have happened! If it was a runner(7.09g) then he would be the 3rd. out and no runs score and if Zero outs he is out for 2nd. out and other runners would go back to base previously occupied before the interference.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by hawk21

I didn't want to spell everything out, but I guess I have too. Yes F6's throw to home is a force out for 2nd. out and batter/runner interferes with throw from catcher. Rule-7.09h read the rule. because of obvious interference by batter/runner (NOT RUNNER 7.09g)to breakup a double play, the 3rd. out is R2 who crossed the plate on the interference. if there was zero outs the same thing would result and you would have the batter/runner placed at 1st. base and R1 would be forced to go to 2nd. Remember it doesn't matter where the double play would have happened! If it was a runner(7.09g) then he would be the 3rd. out and no runs score and if Zero outs he is out for 2nd. out and other runners would go back to base previously occupied before the interference.

1) the correct rule reference is 7.09(g) (under the 2007 revisions).

2) The rule requires "willfully and deliberately" interfering (and being out of the running lane isn't sufficient)

3) The rule also requires that the interference be with a batted ball or with a fielder fielding a batted ball -- neither of which was present in your play.

[hawk21]

someone is paying attention, I don't have the 2007 version so my book is 7.09h. Yes, he did "intentionally and deliberately" interfere. Yes this was a thrown ball so batter/runner out for 3rd. out, no runs score! I will work with you any day Bob!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by hawk21

someone is paying attention,

Apparently that someone isn't you. Read Bob's post again and pay specific attention to his third point.

[hawk21]

I am agreeing with him Mr. Garth if you read my post! I guess I confused you also!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by hawk21

I am agreeing with him Mr. Garth if you read my post! I guess I confused you also!

Uh, yeah. Especially since he points out that this must involve a batted ball and you state that it involved a thrown ball. And then you indicate that the two of you are in agreement.

Yes, indeed, you are most confusing.

[hawk21]

my reply to my original question was intended to see if anyone would notice what Bob noticed in my answer, I guess you don't agree with this so just let it go!

[bob jenkins]

I agree with Garth that I don't seem to agree with Hawk21

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by hawk21

my reply to my original question was intended to see if anyone would notice what Bob noticed in my answer, I guess you don't agree with this so just let it go!

That makes it much clearer.

[bigda65]

I frequently view, and occassionally post, but I have to ask a serious question.

Where does this forum get some of these posters??

I'm thinking we could fill a large area, - surrounded with the razor barbed wire - with these guys/gals.