![]() |
|
|
|||
Hmm... I see your point and see how it's in line with the MLBUM. Unfortunately, it's not in line with the OBR rule as written ... and we don't all have MLBUM (nor do we officiate by them in non MLB games). Conundrum. Honestly, I don't see how they stretch the rule in the book to cover the MLBUM caseplay.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
![]()
mbc,
When you take 7.09(f) and 6.05(m) together, it's really pretty clear IMO: Quote:
JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all. |
|
|||
Quote:
I don't think this is a HTBT thing. It's a rule interpretation thing. There's no question that R1 interfered with F6. There is no need to be there. The statement of the problem indicates that the umpire is convinced that he was beyond reach of the base. He's out for interference. The play is immediately dead. There is no question of that. Consequently, the errant throw is of no consequence. What do we do with the batter-runner is the conundrum. Since R1 was SAFE at 2nd there was never any chance of a double play. Yet, your citation of an authoritative interpretation seems to indicate that it doesn't matter. Maybe that's because, despite the safe-at-2nd, it was still an ATTEMPT to make a double play. I still don't know. But it's definitely not a HTBT play. Last edited by David Emerling; Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 09:58pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
The MLBUM is the OFFICIAL interpretation of the rule by the folks that wrote the rules. That's how.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong |
|
|||
![]()
Dave,
Not be argumentative, but I still believe it's definitely a HTBT play. I'm not disputing your point about the importance of the rule interp, but an essential element of the criteria is "...deliberate intent to break up a double play...". Personally, I've got to see that to call it. Earlier, I called it the "OBR FSPR" on purpose. Nobody ever calls it that, but I think that's what it is. The criteria for violation are materially different, but it's still an FPSR - IMO. JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
However, the rule about being within reach of the base for the slide to be legal would apply even if it were not a force play - wouldn't it? I'm not sure. |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I don't believe it would, were it not a force play. 7.08(a)(1) might. HTBT. JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all. |
|
|||
Dave, an important part of your ruling on this type of play is that the offense is trying to cheat by taking out the fielder to prevent a play on the BR. When they cheat, we penalize both the cheater and the BR.
__________________
Its' not a matter of being right or wrong, it's a matter of working hard to get it right. |
|
|||
BUT if they slide legally it isn't cheating. "Legal" is much different in OBR vs. FED.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong |
|
|||
I agree Rich, I was going off the OP that the runner was beyond his reach of the base. Although I've seen it called in MLB, it's rare at that level. My first thoguht was that the fielder was in front of the bag, which I would agree legal.
__________________
Its' not a matter of being right or wrong, it's a matter of working hard to get it right. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ruling | fullor30 | Basketball | 52 | Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:17pm |
Obstruction/interference/"malicious" contact non-ruling (NFHS)... | jcwells | Baseball | 7 | Wed Jul 09, 2008 06:04pm |
batters interference/interference by teammate | _Bruno_ | Baseball | 7 | Mon Apr 07, 2008 07:28am |
Ruling in ASA: Interference? | HawkeyeCubP | Softball | 5 | Thu Jun 14, 2007 07:03pm |
Runner interference versus umpire interference | Jay R | Baseball | 1 | Thu Apr 28, 2005 07:00pm |