Stupid Ruling
OK, I have checked the BRD and see as I noted in my earlier post that the catcher is not considered an infielder.
Normally, I have no problem with interps etc. However, this is one of the stupidist I have seen.
Basically, the catcher screws the pooch and the runner pays the price. In this "classic" play R3 is past the catcher clear to the plate when the backspin goes through the catcher and hits R3 who could be one step from scoring. We can even take it further. Let's say on the intital play, R3 went to the inside of the diamond to avoid the catcher. NOW, the runner, who has gone to the inside to avoid the fielder, is penalized. So the runner has done absolutely everything he could and is screwed.
Absolutely crazy. I might, no I would, go out on a limb in a game and not call this interference. Why, common sense only. NO, technically I don't have backing in the rules, but COMMON sense (which has nothing to do with OBR) would rule in my world on this one.
Let's take a look at the catcher's status. ON an infield fly 5 feet in front of the plate, pitcher calls for it, catcher calls him off. The catcher misses the ball and it falls untouched and remains fair. WE have an infield fly, as it should (could) have been caught by an infielder. Who was about to catch it - the catcher. IN this situation and overthrows, the catcher is an infielder. OBR rules SUCK. I wish they would get their sh** together.
My point is the definition of an infielder for this play is stupid and the bigwigs at the PUBC need to get this one right.
OK, I am prepared for the onslaught.
Blaine
|