Is there a hole in 8-7-J

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

Based on what rule or definition? By definition the batter-runner stay a batter-runner until they reach first base, at which time they become a runner, or they have been retired. It is true you can't send the BR back to the batter position, but that is not our only option. Whenever we have interference and the BR is not called out we place them on 1st base. So we don't have to send them back to bat.

Once you kill the ball on the INT call, that places the BR on 1B, that player becomes a runner. Read Rule 1.

I don't agree. The rule says a double play not a play on the BR. The defense could be trying to turn a 4-2-5 double play. We can't assume that the double play includes a play at 1st.

But you can assume an unlikely attempt at a double play on the opposite side of the diamond? From F4? Okay, granted that could be a possibility, but I would contend that the umpire has really got to have a TWP-like imagination to even consider it without additional known quantifiers.

I would agree if you said we could not apply 8-2-K if no play at 1st was anticipated. This rule clearly stays "an attempt to complete the play on the batter-runner". What makes 8-7-J Effect not applicable is that the only additional out we can get is the trailing runner. The BR has not become a runner at this time, so we can't get them out. And since the BR is not a runner, there is no trailing runner. So 8-7-J Effect doesn't apply.

So, they way I see it, if R3, prior to being declared out, interferes with F4 and there was no play on the BR at 1b, then we can only get 1 out.

Ah, yeah, that is sort of the point of the rule. The 2nd out is NOT automatic. There has to be a probable play to call the out.

8-2-K does not apply because there was no attempt to complete the play on the batter runner. 8-7-J Effect does not apply because the BR is not a Runner.

I definitely see a hole in the rule. Maybe that's not the intent, but by the strictest definition of the terms runner and batter-runner and then applying those terms to rules 8-2-K and 8-7-J Effect, we definitely can't get two outs on the offered play.

Disagree.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Once you kill the ball on the INT call, that places the BR on 1B, that player becomes a runner. Read Rule 1.

No, once you kill the play the BR does not instantly become a Runner. You have to then enforce the penalty. It is now at this point you enforce 8-7-J. Part of the penalty for interference is placing the BR on 1st base if they are not declared out. That is part of the entire penalty. You can't put them on first base as part of the first enforcement of the penalty then further enforce the penalty a second time and then declare the BR, now a runner, out. It is the BR status at the time of the interference that is important. There is no rule in section 1 that makes the BR a Runner instantaneously on the interference call. It is our enforcement of the penalty that causes them to be designated a runner when we put them on 1st. When we kill the play they are still a BR.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But you can assume an unlikely attempt at a double play on the opposite side of the diamond? From F4? Okay, granted that could be a possibility, but I would contend that the umpire has really got to have a TWP-like imagination to even consider it without additional known quantifiers.

It doesn't require a TWP. R1 on 3rd could be the winning run and with no outs F4 is definitely going home with the throw. As the play develops it may be that 3rd is the next best play to make. Slower runner on 2nd for one example. I agree 1st is the logical next play in many double play scenarios, but as you admitted it is a possibilty. I just don't believe it is a TWP.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Randall, let me give you a way to look at this, as well as other similar situations, which might help you grasp the nuance you are struggling with.

You need to consider a batter-runner as a subset of runners. While there are specific situations that apply only to batter-runners, all rules that apply to runners ALSO apply to batter-runners. Now, if you can accept that as a possibility, your challenge now is to disprove that theory; find any rule that contradicts that subset theory, or any rule that applies to runners that doesn't also apply to batter-runners.

Consider that you would apply "runner" interference to a batter-runner, running out of the base path, other issues defined only to runners, and you also apply missing a base (first) in the same way, even though there are not identical and mirroring rules in each and every instance.

If you get to that point, you can apply the rules you now consider to have holes equally.