disappearing runners

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

You got it right

How do you know it is right? There was no mention of R1s location at the time of the INT.

Please note, the OP stated the runners were off "taking off" (I'm assume that was with the swing, probably even earlier) and it was a slow roller.

I'm not saying they were wrong, but we do not have enough evidence to say it was right.

[chuck chopper]

I assumed there was that 50/50 chance for a play on R1 to justify INT

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

I assumed there was that 50/50 chance for a play on R1 to justify INT

Huh? The INT was justified because F6 was the protected fielder, and R2 ran into her. It had nothing to do with R1's position on the bases.

What IM's point was that R1 could have reached home when the INT was called. If that were the case, there's no returning her to third base; she scores.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Huh? The INT was justified because F6 was the protected fielder, and R2 ran into her. It had nothing to do with R1's position on the bases.

What IM's point was that R1 could have reached home when the INT was called. If that were the case, there's no returning her to third base; she scores.

Correct, the good jump, fast runner, slow roller & fielder rule.

[Tru_in_Blu]

To clarify the point on the position of R1, she had not crossed the plate at the time of the INT.

Runners were not off on the pitch, which would be foolish with no outs. They did, however, run on contact.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

To clarify the point on the position of R1, she had not crossed the plate at the time of the INT.

Thank you for the clarification

Runners were not off on the pitch, which would be foolish with no outs. They did, however, run on contact.

No more foolish than runners on 3rd breaking toward home on every pitch.