Ball dead, not defense interference The reason why Doosan’s runners got home base and the batter survived

Batter Kang Seung-ho’s unintentional ‘throwing interference’, only cancellation of Lee Yu-chan’s stolen base

Doosan Bears Kang Seung-ho

Lee Yu-chan’s steal of second base was canceled due to Seung-ho Kang’s (Doosan Bears) unintentional ‘throw interference’.

However, because it was not intentional, Kang Seung-ho was not declared to have ‘interfered with the batter’s defense’.

In a professional baseball home game against SSG Landers held at Jamsil Stadium in Seoul on the 22nd, in the bottom of the first inning, runner Lee Yu-chan attempted to steal second base while Doosan’s attack was safe and was ruled ‘safe’.

However, after discussion, the umpires returned Lee Yu-chan to ‘first base’.

When Kang Seung-ho, who was at bat, missed the second pitch, Lee Yu-chan ran to second base, and the reason was that Kang Seung-ho’s polo swing interfered with SSG catcher Lee Ji-young’s throw.

The umpires did not even declare ‘obstruction of the batter’s defense’.

If ‘interfering with the batter’s defense’ is declared, batter Seungho Kang is ruled out.

The umpire explained, “Because the batter interfered with the throw during the natural swing process without leaving the batter’s box, the runner is sent to base.”

KBO baseball rule is 6.03 Batter’s Foul Act In the circumference, ‘The batter swings the bat with so much force that the bat touches the catcher due to the momentum, or the bat swings back without any intention and the pitch has not yet been clearly caught by the catcher. When the umpire determines that the catcher did not catch the ball because it touched , the batter’s interference is not declared and the ball is declared dead and the runner is not allowed to advance.

Doosan coach Seung-yeop Lee was disappointed that Lee Yu-chan’s stolen base was not recognized and complained about ‘throw interference’.

SSG coach Lee Soong-yong appealed that Kang Seung-ho was left at bat because he was not recognized for ‘interfering with the batter’s defense.’

However, the referee did not accept the protests of the two coaches by applying ‘6.03 Batter’s foul play Wonju’. 섯다