Wait a minute . . . . . .

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue

2. January issue. “How to get the tough calls right” by Jay Milner. Situation: defense attempting to turn 6-4-3 DP and R1 gets hit by the thrown ball. Jay states that if R1 is not close to 2B he would not call interference (absent any intentional act on the part of R1). However, ”if R1 remains on her feet as she nears 2B and could slide into 2B or avoid the throw but didn’t, rule intentional interference on the retired runner, and call runner out that is closest to home.”

Anybody here buying that interpretation?

WMB

In the years I read Referee, I always had the feeling that Mr. Milner relied more on trying to find middle ground to satisfy both teams than applying the actual rule. It seems things haven't changed.

Not only does the rule book (ASA) demand intent, common sense does the same.

Just as the batter's requirement to stay in the BB to avoid INT with a catcher making an attempt to put out a runner, the same logic applies here.

A catcher knows where the batter is supposed to be so she knows where she can throw the ball to get the out. She doesn't have to guess which way the batter will move because the batter must remain in the box.

Same on the bases. The runner always has every right to attempt to advance to the base s/he is trying to attain. Just because they are put out at some point does not mean they must abandon the basepath. The fielders (and I know the SP players are a bit dense on this point) must learn where their throwing lane is located and it's not through the runner head. Asking the runner to move only invites more problems as now the defender and retired runner must guess which way the other will go. If the both go the same way, now you may very well have INT and that is a much tougher call than not calling INT on a retired runner in the basepath.

So, to answer the question, no, I do not buy it.