![]() |
Maybe I've been getting this wrong...
I read the exception to say that a batter who has just been retired for the first or second out on strikes where the third one was dropped (i.e. 1B was occupied), is not causing interference just because she runs to first and F2 makes a DMC and throws to first. However, if she then gets hit with said throw, then she has interfered with the defenses ability to put out the other runner and, despite the exception, is still guilty of interference and should cause the runner closest to home to also be out. And in this case, I wouldn't care if in the running lane or not.:) Am I off the reservation? |
Quote:
I am addressing the last sentence of the OP which specifically addressed a violation for "drawing a throw". There is no other reason for the discussion about the "exception" to the rule. Now, if as the umpire your judgment was that the catcher was throwing to make a play on another runner (and the play was viable, not just target practice trying to draw an out call), I can see an INT call AND it would be the runner closest to home. |
Quote:
Be that as it may, a throw to 1B with the batter running is not LIKELY to be a play on ANOTHER runner. |
Quote:
|
Obviously, the throw to first was not a play on another runner (unless the runner on first decided to dive back). I just don't see that rulemakers intended that this exception would grant the retired runner more protection from interference than a legitimate BR would. A BR running in fair territory would be guilty of interence if hit in fair territory.
This retired runner WILL get the other runner more than just second that the DMC would otherwise simply by making sure she's in the way of the throw. Yes, I know the throw should never have happened. |
Quote:
You are overthinking this way too much. What protection is this player receiving from INT if there wasn't a play at 1B? None, zero, zilch, zip, nada, etc. A running lane is irrelevant since there is no BR! This is not a difficult rule. The exception ONLY states that an offensive player who has been retired as a batter at the plate is not quilty of interference if they head toward 1B and draw a throw. |
Quote:
Tangentially, I have no idea how that clause of the ruling (if there is a play) is really meant to be interpretted on a walk. ________ Glass Bong |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I give up. |
Quote:
|
Read the rule about the three-foot running lane and when it applies.
Note that this rule applies only to a batter-runner. A batter running for first base, when not entitled to, is NOT a batter-runner. In this case, the three-foot lane is not relevant. It essentially does not exist and has no bearing on the play. |
If I apply this rule incorrectly, it will be from trying to make sense of this thread. :o ;) :)
A few of us need to skip it and reread tomorrow. :cool: |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26am. |