- May 29, 2015
- 3,731
- 113
Yes, that is a different scenario and there is a case to be made for interference.
Likely, I would allow the first play of the defense to stand. The batter-runner is NOT entitled to run (I don’t like when people cite that in this situation, it is not accurate), but there is a “professional courtesy” that is granted in not penalizing the runner who starts to run at youth levels (you want the kids to be taught to run).
In that case, we do typically say the onus is on the defense to know the situation. Screw up and throw, well, sorry.
The retired batter-runner rounds first and draws another play ... now we have a problem. Now we have a pretty clear (IMO) interference call.
Likely, I would allow the first play of the defense to stand. The batter-runner is NOT entitled to run (I don’t like when people cite that in this situation, it is not accurate), but there is a “professional courtesy” that is granted in not penalizing the runner who starts to run at youth levels (you want the kids to be taught to run).
In that case, we do typically say the onus is on the defense to know the situation. Screw up and throw, well, sorry.
The retired batter-runner rounds first and draws another play ... now we have a problem. Now we have a pretty clear (IMO) interference call.