|
|
|
Fri Mar 25, 2011, 01:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
However, as I asked on the other thread, I'm wondering about the mechanics on this. As mentioned, interference leads to an immediate dead ball (right?). I'm making this up as I go, so please bear with me. The PU then:
|
|
Fri Mar 25, 2011, 02:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
While in most cases interference does, in fact, result in an immediate dead ball, batter interference is one of the rare exceptions. 5-2(a). In your "sequence", if you were to move #3 after #4 you'd be good. JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
|
|
Fri Mar 25, 2011, 02:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
No. You have to wait for the play to finish between 2 and 3. If the initial throw retires the runner, then items 3-5 are ignored.
|
|
Fri Mar 25, 2011, 03:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri Mar 25, 2011, 03:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Suudy,
That is correct. If the F2's initial attempt to retire a runner is successful despite the interference, the interference is disregarded and the play stands. (Regardless of whether or not the batter struck out.) JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
|
|
Fri Mar 25, 2011, 04:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
For example, no outs, 1-2 count, B1 swings and misses, but F2 drops the ball. B1 pushes F2 and starts to run toward first. R2 takes off for third. F2 recovers and throws 1) to first in time to put out the batter-runner, 2) to first and over the head of F3, 3) to third in time to tag R1, 4) to third but not in time to tag R1.
|
|
Fri Mar 25, 2011, 07:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Fri Mar 25, 2011, 08:01pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
suudy,
When the batter becomes a runner on the pitch, he is no longer a batter but a batter-runner. That might seem like a trivial distinction, but it's actually important. Since he is no longer a batter, he is no longer constrained by the batter interference rules. So, yes, it matters quite a bit. Now, if the batter were to push the F2 (which to me implies intent), he's out on runner interference, I'm killing the play immediately, and it is certainly conceivable that I would call the runner out as well (due to his teammate's interference) if I felt a double play was likely or possible. Conversely, if the BR just took off for 1B and the F2 just went after the loose ball and inadvertently "bumped" one another, then I've got "nothing" (a tangle/untangle in umpire parlance). If the F2 gets the ball and airmails it over the F3's head, and the runner is short of or within the running lane, I've still got nothing. If he's past halfway and outside the running lane (and in the "flight path" of the throw), I've likely got the BR out on runner's lane interference. The ball is immediately dead and runner's return to their TOP (OBR) or TOI (FED) base. (Likely the same place in this sitch.) JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
|
|
Sat Mar 26, 2011, 08:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
What would you do in that situation? Where F2 made the mistake of throwing to first, an already occupied base at TOP on the dropped third strike with less than two outs and we have interferrence on the B/R? Like I said, F2 was not trying to throw to second to get R1, he was throwing to first.
|
|
Fri Mar 25, 2011, 07:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri Mar 25, 2011, 09:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Coach, I had already inferred you were displeased by my call. Did you have a question?"
 JM ___ Simply The Best  The cute one-liner is not only unnecessary it will only further inflame an out of control coach. "Coach, did you have a question?" is simple, direct and doesn't buy you an unneeded continuation of harassment or argument. Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
