Is there a hole in 8-7-J

[rwest]

Originally Posted by shagpal

yeah, the loophole is there as explicitly written, so OP raises a valid point, which is really just a language issue.

mike is saying BR is awarded 1B regardless. so it doesn't matter, since it makes BR the a runner when placed on 1B by default.

steve is saying, the BR is a runner also in a sense, so BR doesn't need to ever reach 1B to be the second out.

I was suggesting another possible way to look at it, that BR reaches 1B after dead ball call because she is allowed to finish running responsibilities first before enforcement of the INT double play breakup. by doing so, I'm suggesting this might close up the language because it makes BR a runner if she reaches 1B safely. I can't see this being an issue in real play, unless BR pulls something silly like goto the dugout first. I guess anything can happen.

If you enforce the penalty for interference and award the BR 1st base, you can't then call them out on a subsequent application of the penalty. That's similar to an Ex Post Facto law, in which you punish some one for a past activity that is now a crime but wasn't when it was performed. Once we enforce the penalty for interference and place BR on 1st, we are done. We can't go any further.

We can't use the awarded bases rule either. The rules stating that we must allow the runners to complete their base running responsibilities are in regard to missed base or base left early. We allow them to correct their mistake BEFORE awarding the bases. There is no mistake in this case to correct. We are awarding 1st because of the interference. There is nothing we are required to allow the runner to do before we award them 1st base.

I'm leaning toward Steve's method. I'd word it differently though. I'd just say the intent of the rule does not preclude getting the BR out. The black and white written word may, but not the intent.