once the BR reaches 1st, there is no longer a BR, but just an R! BRs only exist between home and 1st


Ooops! B-R exists until the end of the play. Remember as BU you have the B-R all the way to 3rd!

WMB

Opps back atcha... ASA Rule 1 - Batter-RunnerIt was a wise crack. Let's not make a big deal out of it!
... End of hijack ...

HI-JACK
 

After lisening to all of this and being misunderstood about the pickle(based on the replies, I was); this no-thow possibly out (sitch C ) has me wondering about a no-throw in a pickle. If in C any of you might call INT, why wouldnt that be the same thing in a pickle?

Re: HI-JACK
 

It wouldn't be the same since there is no restriction on where a runner may run between any other 2 bases. Runners can do loops around the pitcher's circle if they want. To be called for INT in a pickle situation, the runner would have to do something intentional (e.g. waving arms) or interfere directly with a player.

Dang, why didnt I know this. Thats why Im here is guess. Better to learn it here than on the field.
http://smilies.sofrayt.com/1/b0/togo.gif[Automated by GetSmile]

Kinda why I said, in my initial response about the pickle, that intent is required for interference in a pickle.

Oh well.

:)

Game on! First games tonight, finally.

Yeah, sorry to divert attention from your point by being a wise guy!

I went back and re-read everything and then that made sense, too.
Wax on, wax off. Danielson..focus.

No, not technically. When a player is involved in a RUNDOWN, a retired runner may interfere with another play. It doesn't have to be intentional. Like I said, technically, but I just wanted to use the word rundown.

You want a damn pickle, go to a deli.

I can see Mikes perfect world ;-)
But why would most/all of you call interference here? Where is the interference with F3? There is a throw and that throw is cleanly caught. Where do you see interference on the fielder receiving the throw?
Or what am I missing?

Raoul

ISF
Firstly a high level catcher with an accurate arm will step and throw the BR out .
If they dont , well they aint high level .
We obviously have umpires judgement here but I wouldnt call dead ball interference in this scenario with the catcher except for D .
The runner shouldnt have been there and was hit by a thrown ball in fair territory .
Batter runner is out
When he runs outside the 3ft lane and in the umpires judgement interferes with
a) The fielder taking the throw at first or
b) The thrown ball preventing a fielder from making a play at first base

I bet some of you guys sell the hell out of your calls cuz I feel alot of pent up hostility. God save the sand-lot lingo. ('pickle', for the idiots)
http://smilies.sofrayt.com/aiw/dwarf.gif

This play must be seen. It can't be called from a verbal description, IMO. If the runner is out of the running lane, and the play on the runner at first is unsuccessful, I will give the benefit of the doubt (was it or was it not interference) to the defense. The runner's option to avoid this benefit of the doubt is simple - stay in the running lane!

If the catcher had a good play but just muffed it through hesitation, no call.

High level players will hardly ever have this situation. Both F4 and F2 will be moving to provide the throwing lane, especially if there is a double base at first.

You haven't quite caught on to the familiar ribbing that goes on here. It's not hostility (well, at least not most of the time).