|
Tony, the fact that F6 didn't charge directly toward the ball doesn't mean that he was significantly away from it. While only veering perhaps 5-6 feet from his direct line to the ball, that action was easy to judge from home plate whereas not as easy for BU to judge it---especially with all the other action of the play within close proximity to him. The judgment was not obvious from other angles of the field.
As for the adult league crowd and what they thought,
we could have polled both people to see what they felt........
but they were girlfriends that were reading different books at the time........ ;-)
My point is not to "bait" Jim Porter, but rather to support the position I advocated---that the PU has the best angle to witness all the action as the play develops and occurs. He sees it all whereas the BU only picks up partial information due to starting with his back to the fielders. My pupose in mentioning the past position Jim took was only to show that it's been discussed before and that there are differing viewpoints on who should take responsibility for that call. Moreso, that the PU should not avoid making call due to the mere fact that the BU is closer to the play. There are more factors than proximity to the play when determining whether or not to jump in and take the call. In this situation, the BU's proximity was actually detrimental to his ability to judge the play.
This was a situation where I felt the BU, who started with his back turned to the play, had the opportunity to react to the ball, see the action, and time to comprehend it for the proper call. It was my mistake in expecting that when, indeed, it was a very simple call to make from behind the plate where the play was obvious to see and judge.
While this bait play is hardly an everyday event, it still supports why the PU should jump on the runner interference call in a 2-man system.
Freix
|