inteference by batter or not?

[Roger Greene]

Mike,Dakota,
I'm not trying to restart any arguements. I was just left confused by the previous thread. I'm trying to understand the ASA position from listening to you guys.

Is your position that either the no call or interference could be supported if the attempt is to retire a runner returning to first or stealing to another base?

If that is correct, how do we distinguish this from batter inteference? "Come on blue, the batter was allowed to run to first after the caught 3rd strike. It wasn't her fault that the catcher's throw hit her as she crossed the plate. She had no intent to intefer."

It just semes to me that the all the plays cited concerned F2 attempting to play on the retired BR, not on a runner currently on base. I understand and agree with the logic of WYSIWYG when F2 playes on the retired BR by mistake, but it seems that the burden to avoid interference would shift to the retired BR when F2 is making a legitimate play on another runner.

Thanks in advance for helping me sort this out.

Roger Greene,
Member UT






[Edited by Roger Greene on Sep 24th, 2001 at 11:21 AM]