First image is the out, second is when the runner gets plonked. She's gone about two strides, or, by back of the envelope calculation, about 9 feet total, maybe 7 from the out to the time of the throw.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/crabby_bob/8496376942/" title="OregonTennINT_1 by Crabby_Bob, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8392/8496376942_b1baa9e8c4_z.jpg" width="640" height="359" alt="OregonTennINT_1"></a> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/crabby_bob/8496376886/" title="OregonTennINT_3 by Crabby_Bob, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8105/8496376886_8448759afc_z.jpg" width="640" height="360" alt="OregonTennINT_3"></a> |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You can put it anyway you want, but it really sounds like you are making excuses for pitiful umpiring and weak interpretation. That's a shame. |
Necro
Sorry to necro this thread, but there are so many bad analogies and allusions....
The retired runner has committed interference, and the batter-runner is out. The end. "The runner can't disappear" doesn't matter. "The runner was doing what she was supposed to be doing" doesn't matter. Calling out "an act" doesn't matter. Turn this around. If this was a fielder who attempted to field a ground ball, missed it, and then ran into a runner, no one would use these excuses for the fielder. He would be called for obstruction. If he were lying on the ground, napping, he'd be guilty of obstruction. If he were standing in the basepath like a statue, causing the runner to change his direction to go around, he'd be guilty of obstruction, despite not committing any "act." If your response is "well, standing, lying, napping are all acts," then you've defeated your argument because so is "running bases normally." If your response is "well, this was a thrown ball, not a player," sorry, if the retired runner interferes with a fielder or a throw, it is interference. If the rulemakers wanted us to continue judging intent on throws, they would have left it in. They didn't remove intent from the rule for runners (not yet retired), so why would they remove it for retired runners if they wanted the rule to be called that way? There is a YT play somewhat similar to this when, with a runner on 1B, a batter bunted the ball into the air and began running. The catcher caught the ball on the fly, so the batter-runner stopped running. That's ALL she did. The catcher threw to first to retire the runner and hit the batter-runner in the back. Umpires ruled retired runner interference after calling a supervisor of officials to confirm the call. |
1) Nice to remember those who have been so valuable contributing to this forum; although most apparently stopped participating.
2) It is almost 10 years since this topic started, same question as earlier and as said repeated many, many time since; by umpires all over. 3) If there is INT, and the BR has reached 1st before the INT occurs; the BR can not be out as succeeding runner because of the INT. It would be the runner closest to home, which of course could be the runner at 1st. 4) I hate to use HTBT to not answer, but that is part of the examples. 5) I doubt we will ever resolve this issue, because it is not clearly covered in any rules book. Like I said, over 10 years with very expert voices and not resolved. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:43am. |