The Man in Blue Posted 14 hours ago Report Posted 14 hours ago I have a hunch that I am going to highly disagree with the answer they are looking for here … Since the interference has to be intentional, I imagine the ruling they want is to leave the runner at second base (first option). I disagree with the notion that “golf swinging near the ball” is accidental and NOT intentional. What say you? Quote
Velho Posted 13 hours ago Report Posted 13 hours ago So you answered C and it's wrong? (which is what I would answer btw) Follow through interference (6-2-d) comes to mind (as a stretch) - which would be R1 back to 1B, so B. Could one talk themselves into A if R1 had it stolen anyway? So then it's just a 'don't do that'? Quote
The Man in Blue Posted 13 hours ago Author Report Posted 13 hours ago I haven't submitted it yet. It's a weekly quiz our state sends out. I'm running a streak of perfect 5/5 weeks and am struggling with whether I give in and select the BS answer they want, or how it should actually be called. And by "actually" I mean "I say so." 😋 I suspect they want "A" because it states he "accidentally" hit the ball. (Sorry, golf swinging the bat near the ball is not "accidentally" hitting it. Golf swinging the bat near the ball is what is preventing the catcher from grabbing the ball, not hitting it.) 1 Quote
DevildogUmp Posted 11 hours ago Report Posted 11 hours ago FWIW - my understanding is that a Batter or B-R can be protected from interference when he accidentally contacts a misplayed pitch. In the OP he is not a B-R, rather a retired player and therefore does not enjoy any protections from being called for interference. Grab both outs. 2 Quote
grayhawk Posted 11 hours ago Report Posted 11 hours ago 23 minutes ago, DevildogUmp said: FWIW - my understanding is that a Batter or B-R can be protected from interference when he accidentally contacts a misplayed pitch. In the OP he is not a B-R, rather a retired player and therefore does not enjoy any protections from being called for interference. Grab both outs. Agreed. Intent not required to call interference by a retired runner. Get two here. 1 Quote
The Man in Blue Posted 10 hours ago Author Report Posted 10 hours ago I was going to let this get some more conversation before I hit submit, but I couldn't stand the suspense. I warned you. And jumping to 8-4-1d Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.