Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Read my lips: As far as the rules go, there is NO DIFFERENCE. The destination of a throw matters only if it's an attempt to complete a double play. The reason for the throw never enters into an umpire's consideration, regardless of what you think.[/B]
|
No difference in what??? As far as the rules go, there is a difference between a batter/runner's interference in regards to the running lane and a batter's interference with a catchers attempt to make a play. If there were no difference, there would not be two separate rules to distinguish the two. Can we agree on that???
Play one is the runners lane situation where BR interferes with a throw.6.05k
Play two is the Batters int with the catcher's attempt to make a play on a runner.6.06c
Lets break this down:
It was brought up about the 5' throw over the head of F1 (or any D at first base) which could be caused by BR running outside the line
<<
>>
It was said that the play one throw is nothing because it has to be a quality throw. I AGREE. Then it moved to the FED interpretation of #19 or 20. I compared THAT issue to the fact that it is similar to a catcher attempting to retire a runner at ANY base on a pick off.(ie: OBR 6.06(c) see below) I was told by you and others that there is a big difference which I acknowledged and gave an additional example why there is a big difference. I made the point that one major difference between the two plays is that one is int with a thrown ball and the other is with an attempt to make a play on a runner. Your point, as I took it, was that the first play(runners lane play) required a quality throw and the second play didn't. My point is the reason why the second play doesn't require a quality throw is that the interference with the attempt could be the reason why the throw is not quality. Hence, the interference occured with the attempt to throw and not the actual throw (as discussed above plus -OBR 2.00: A throw is the act of propelling the ball with the hand and arm to a given objective and is to be distinguished, always, from the pitch.)
OBR: 6.06(c) A batter is out for illegal action when - He intefreres with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter's box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher's play at home base.
In addition: NCAA NOTE 2: to 6-2-d: If, in the umpire's judgment, the catcher has possession of teh ball and is in the act of throwing or preparing to throw and the batter interferes with the catcher, the batter then shall be declared out (Profided the throw does not retire the runner). ADD Jimmy's verbal classroom note: There MUST be a Throw. Throwing or Preparing means throw is eminant. It says preparing to throw which means a throw is happening. Does not mean catcher is preparing NOT to throw. There is no guarantee that C is attempting to throw so the throw must happen. I know the verbal note may not be admissable in your court but I thought I'd throw it in for those guys who are interested in a little extra information.
So, I read this(in regards to the second play) as interfering with the attempt to retire a runner on a pickoff or the act of throwing the ball. Thus, the ball is not in the air yet. Everyone realizes that if B1 interferes with the ball in the air (second play) while he is out of the box or made a motion while in the box to cause the throw to hit him, it is certainly interference. That is the same as the first play where the throw was interfered with while in flight. Is that what you mean by there is no difference?
Now, is this enough evidence for you to see that there is
a distinction in the a RULE BOOK (OBR) between interference with a ball that is in flight(play one 6.05k) and interference with an attempt to throw or make a play (play two 6.06c)?
If so, can you point me to a citation in any dictionary to the word adjectly? I'm just an umpire and don't know those big words.
Thanks for your help.
BTW:I hope you didn't intend to describe yourself as Verdant. Verdad is another big word for me.