Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Short answer; yes, there must be a throw. There cannot be interference with a play when no play is attempted.
|
Shorter answer: no.
I just do not care for absolutes especially in the case of possible INT
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Over the years, the rules-makers have made every systematic effort to remove wording from the books suggesting that umpires guess WHY a player did something; we don't judge intent, we judge an action (or non-action). In that vein, we simply should not be guessing, assuming, or even strongly believing why she didn't throw; she didn't throw!!
|
Long ago I tired of the excuse-makers who would argue "intent" with the "you cannot read his/her mind, so how do you know his/her intent" bullshit. Anyone who has been around the game doesn't need to guess, certain things become so apparent, Ray Charles could make the correct call. If you know the game, and as an umpire you should, it is not that difficult to recognize and make the appropriate call.
Quote:
|
Absent contact with the batter or that interfering bat in a throwing motion, no throw means no play.
|
I would agree with this 95% of the time, but I would not exclude a possible INT simply because the catcher did not release the ball