View Single Post
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 29, 2003, 11:00am
CecilOne CecilOne is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Re: Agree with poor interp.

Quote:
Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Precaution for what? There is none. The only plausible reason that a catcher would throw to 1st is if the runner had rounded the base (is now beyond the 3 foot lane) and is now trying to draw a throw/play. The batter runner is not in jeopardy of being thrown out between home and 1st... I agree with those that have said it is a very poor interpretation to allow a runner that is not in jeopardy to be called out because the catcher wants to hit them in the back with a thrown ball... because they are not in the 3 foot lane.

There is no reason for the catcher to make that throw.
The catcher might make the throw to prevent the runner advancing or bluffing to 2nd, or because F3 is breaking in a new mitt, or to fake out another runner, or because the catcher thought it was strike three. It doesn't matter whether it is strategic or makes sense, only what the rules say. The literal wording of the rule has no exception for becoming a BR by a walk, so how could the application be any different? We are not talking about "the catcher wants to hit them in the back". We are talking about the catcher wants the fielder at 1st to have the ball. Don't forget the second part of the "interpretation" disallowed intentionally "pegging" the BR.

Quote:
Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
I would be willing to toss the catcher if I felt his hitting the BR was intentional.
Willing to and would!
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote