Rich Ives Cub42 wroteI 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 hawk21 wroteI 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 hawk21 wrotesomeone is paying attention, Apparently that someone isn't you. Read Bob's post again and pay specific attention to his third point.
GarthB hawk21 wroteI 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!
GarthB hawk21 wrotemy 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.:rolleyes:
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.
UmpLarryJohnson hawk21 wrotemy 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! No your reply just showed you BLEW IT and dont' want to admit it! 🙄
hawk21 sorry but not the case. When I gave the answer, I just gave the rule ref. and said to read the rule, I didn't give you what rule 7.09 actually said not to make it obvious. I wanted guys to actually open the book and read the rule. Bob obviously did or even new the rule to come back with the correct answer. Anyway, I know you have your opinion, but I know what I meant--Have a nice day!
