|
Sat Feb 19, 2005, 11:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
ASA question #97
Having a small dispute with Mrs Blue about this one. I hate to admit it, she's probably correct, but.... We can't seem to find any case plays exactly like this scenario, or any rule that would treat a retired batter differently than one who is not retired. We have batter out and runner returns with less than 2K's, (unless intentional) but if the batter is already retired....Then what? One say's B, the other D. I'll report the loser later! (if it's not both of us!). 
|
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005, 01:29am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hadnt gotten to 97 yet but...
I see nothing in the question that suggests intent for 8.7.P to be (loosely) applied - IMO its just interference by a batter - Batter out, runner returned - so B is my guess.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
|
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005, 09:09am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have no idea what the question is but, the instant after the batter is charged with a 3rd strike, she becomes the batter-runner. (She isn't out until F2 catches the pitch in flight, she is retired at 1st base, or she is retired by rule[less than 2 out, 1st occupied].)
In most cases when you have interference by a retired batter-runner, the rule requires an out somewhere else. Does that tack bolster your argument or the wifes? Roger Greene
|
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005, 09:40am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe the answer is "D". With less than 2 outs and 1B occupied, the batter is out on strike 3. If already retired batter interferes with the catcher on steal, the runner closest to home is declared out (R1 at 3B), and the other runners (R2 at 1B) returned to last base legally touched prior to the interference.
|
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005, 02:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The referenced CB Play is 8.2.22
R1 is on 3B, R2 on 1B with no outs and the batter has 0-ball, 2-strike count. On the next pietch, the batter strikes out as R2 steasl 2B. The batter interferes with the catcher's throw to 2B as THEY walk to the 1B dugout and R2 is safe. RULING: This is interference by the batter after they were out. R1, the runner closer to home, should also be ruled out. R2 is sent back to 1B. (8-2F; 8-6C; 1-INTERFERENCE) Hope that helps.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005, 03:56pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I dont see how intent can be read into the question... least of all "obvious" intent (if you consider this a double play to apply that portion of the rule - which is the only portion of the rule that gets the lead runner called out).
According to 8.2.H EFFECT (of BR interference): (besides BR being out): The ball is dead and runner(s) must return to last base legally touched. Your referenced 8.6.C also supports Runner must return to base... not calling out the R1.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
|
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005, 04:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Thanks Mike. Oh, BTW, I'll have to tell the wife THEY was right!
|
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005, 04:36pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The ball is dead, an out is ruled, and all runners must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference. The batter has already been ruled out and you cannot have the same player called out twice on the same play. Since the interference was not that of an active runner or batter, the runner closest to home is ruled out. BTW, not my references, that is from the test answer sheet and the casebook (2005-2006). [Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Feb 20th, 2005 at 11:24 PM]
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005, 04:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
roger that. thanks.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
|
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005, 04:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for all the input. That caseplay was just what we were looking for, ( but somehow couldn't find it).
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
