In the ensuing discussion...
 

In the ensuing discussion, which included, among others, a former NUS member, the tournament UIC and others...

The BU said he brain lapsed with the DDB call and his intention was interference on the BR...which (of course) resulted in a discussion pretty much like the discussion so far on this board. :)

The consensus was...there was no real consensus.

Re: In the ensuing discussion...
 

Just out of curiousity, does this umpire work NFHS?

No it's not... there's nothing mentioned about a runner not entitled to run.
(Underline emphasis added by me.) If the batter was eligible to run on a U3K, then the rule wouldn't apply. But since our batter wasn't eligible to run, the rule is still applicable.

Or is this rule written weird and I'm reading it wrong?

Both, actually.

The exception is that a retired BR, who has struck out, but who runs anyway in case the third strike rule applies, cannot be considered to be committing an act of interference merely by running to 1B.

The defense (specifically, F2) is expected to know the situation and play accordingly.

So that last sentence in 8-7-P should read:

This does not apply to the batter-runner or retired batter running on the dropped or assumed dropped third strike rule.

?

Re: Re: In the ensuing discussion...
 

[/QUOTE]

Just out of curiousity, does this umpire work NFHS? [/B][/QUOTE]

Mike,
I assume he does, although that didn't come up during the discussion.

P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.

This does not work in this situation because the catcher threw towards 1b. R1 was heading towards 2b. How could B2 be interfering with a play on R1 unless she was running towards the pitcher's rubber?

Okay, here's my $.02.

First, this is certainly not interference in ASA. The rule sequence is 1) it used to be called interference up to about 5 years ago, so 2) a rule passed making it a dead ball and no action if a batter retired drew the throw (that rule lasted only one year, as I best recall), to 3) the more current rule making it a live ball, not interference, and the defense has a burden of knowledge the offense is not burdened with. This history and background of the rule changes make it clear that it must NOT be interference, only if another intentional act occurs can it be considered.

Second, by the play sequence, I have three outs; it is almost impossible that you would sell me that a DDB signal on a play on BR put the runner in jeopardy, and that she didn't continue to a play beyond any point of possible protection (even if the runner thinks she is the obstructed runner). The only way I have anything different is if I judge USC on the intentional hitting of the BR by F2. But, I would have to be soooooooo certain it was intentional; and if I did, I am returning the runner to 1B, because I don't believe she would have touched 2B before the ball hit BR, and I have a dead ball immediately on that call.

So, I can accept the possibility of one out and runner returns to 1B, but only if I also have an ejection (probably two or more, because defensive coach almost certainly goes with catcher; either because I think it is taught, or because he doesn't accept me ejecting his catcher).

[Edited by AtlUmpSteve on Jul 6th, 2005 at 02:00 PM]

Re: Re: In the ensuing discussion...
 

Why?

Re: Re: Re: In the ensuing discussion...
 

I had the same thought, actually. This was such a case of parts of a rule that don't apply, I was also thinking the BU included the NFHS ruling that running lane interference would apply on a walk (result would be BR is out and runner would return to 1B).

Dont assume, why you wanna be like us anyway, theres are enough perfect folks already, whats soo wrong with hoopla, and who the heck is B?