Texas - ASU game 3

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

He is no longer a batter...

You're right. I forgot to post the entire rule.

NCAA
Rule 2
Interference
SECTION 50. The act of an offensive player, umpire or nongame person who interferes with; physically or verbally hinders; confuses; or impedes any fielder attempting to make a play.

A.R. 2—If the batter-runner has not touched first base at the time of interference, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch. If there was an intervening play made on another runner, all runners shall return to the base last touched at the time of interference.

Rule 7
When Batter or Batter-Runner Is Out
SECTION 11. A batter is out when
f. The batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s
fielding or *throwing* by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any
other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;

Since he is still an offensive player, 2-50 applies to him.

Here are all of the rule references concerning intentional interference by the batter-runner or runner.

7-11-h. Does not apply.

7-11-o. Does not apply

6-2-h implies intentional interference by runners other than b-r.

7-11-r applies to preceding runners in a force situation.

You might interpret that one to apply here.

Those are the reference to intentional interference. Given rule 2-50 if it does not explicitly say intentional it does not need to be.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Here are all of the rule references concerning intentional interference by the batter-runner or runner.

7-11-h. Does not apply.

7-11-o. Does not apply

6-2-h implies intentional interference by runners other than b-r.

7-11-r applies to preceding runners in a force situation.

You might interpret that one to apply here.

Those are the reference to intentional interference. Given rule 2-50 if it does not explicitly say intentional it does not need to be.

Why not 8-5.d?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why not 8-5.d?

I overlooked that one, the wording of it implies that it does not apply to the batter-runner. But I see how you might apply this one here. I think, however, it would be a stretch. The spirit and intent of this rule is that runners who are hit with thrown balls while running the bases are not ispo facto guilty of interference. The batter-runner is strictly neither a batter nor a runner. Given that, he would not allowed to be legally within the runner's lane and reach up and grab a thrown ball; I think 2-50 covers that situation.

Leaving aside our judgment of the interference by the batter-runner; this is a very difficult rule application.