Non-D3K Situation

[JefferMC]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

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.

Jeff,

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Jeff,

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.

If the ball goes into the dugout off a runner doing the wrong thing on a throw that wasn't a part of a legitimate play and as a result runners advance is the runner not guilty of interference? If the BR is walked and interferes with a throw to first while out of the running lane we have them out if there was a legitimate play anywhere on the field. If there wasn't a legitimate play and the ball goes out of play do they get to go to second or are they out?

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

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Jeff,

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.

Okay, but if the runner already at first decides to dive back to first on the throw. Then we have interference, no? Would you care if the retired runner was in the running lane (I think not).