runner inteference help
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Do you want the reasoning posted, or to wait until people answer the poll?
There is no B1 is no B1 at the time of this play.. There is R1 and B/R.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
There is no B1 is no B1 at the time of this play.. There is R1 and B/R.
Under FED labeling, there is. They call a player that's a batter at the outset by B#.
quote:Originally posted by Matt13:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
There is no B1 is no B1 at the time of this play.. There is R1 and B/R.
Under FED labeling, there is. They call a player that's a batter at the outset by B#.
You mean that goofy and unused by umpires nomenclature that actually refers to "R1 at third"?
Do you really use that nonsense?
When you are quoting a test question or casebook play, yes, you have to use the Fed nomenclature.
Fed must have changed its format if that's a test question.
OP as implied 2nd answer over the first.
Who's the two?
I'd ask the question like; When there is intentional int by a R with a force situation and less than 2 outs, the penalty is..
Cause as is; I'd need a 3rd choice.
A good hard hustle play in which R does indeed intentionally contact F4 yet within the rules.
R doesn't have to give up.
R1 intentionally slides or dives directly into R4's tag and knocks it out, could very well be nothing, no swat,swing,elbow, no kick, no mc, still intentional, could be nothing.
Who's the two?
I'd ask the question like; When there is intentional int by a R with a force situation and less than 2 outs, the penalty is..
Cause as is; I'd need a 3rd choice.
A good hard hustle play in which R does indeed intentionally contact F4 yet within the rules.
R doesn't have to give up.
R1 intentionally slides or dives directly into R4's tag and knocks it out, could very well be nothing, no swat,swing,elbow, no kick, no mc, still intentional, could be nothing.
quote:Originally posted by jjk:
OP as implied 2nd answer over the first.
Who's the two?
I'd ask the question like; When there is intentional int by a R with a force situation and less than 2 outs, the penalty is..
Cause as is; I'd need a 3rd choice.
A good hard hustle play in which R does indeed intentionally contact F4 yet within the rules.
R doesn't have to give up.
R1 intentionally slides or dives directly into R4's tag and knocks it out, could very well be nothing, no swat,swing,elbow, no kick, no mc, still intentional, could be nothing.
Nothing needs to be implied--the OP is clear. Intentionally knocking the ball out of a fielder's glove is always interference. You're adding things that not only aren't there, but are contrary to the facts of the play as stated.
How intention is defined or perceived could be a discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Tangents23:
How intention is defined or perceived could be a discussion.
You are correct, and it could be a good one. The OP, though, states intentionality and it would not be beneficial to obfuscate the question at hand.
The play was where F4 fielded the ball, not at the base so there is no judgement. Intentionally swatting the ball is interference, pure and simple. Unintentional contact is still going to be illegal but the difference is whether you are getting two outs or one. Either kills the ball.
Sounds like two quick outs for the defense to me.