|
I think Peruvian's judgment was shared with a whole lot, if not all of the people that saw, read or heard of the situations, except Emmel.
You say the MLU has wide latitude. Let's look at this play that happened last week and posted here:
"This just happened in the Giants/Reds game (top 7th, no out). R1, bouding grounder hit right at F3. F3 goes to field it and R1 who had started to run to second turned around and went back toward first, stopping directly in front of F3. Ball got past F3, R1 to second and BR to first, play scored E-3.
Anyone else see this play, and shouldn't that be called interference?"
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Mr. T's reply:
Wellll,
Because at the MLB level it is not interference.
Don't confuse professional baseball and games you work between the local A & P and Sid's Texaco.
In MLB the ball would have to hit the runner . . . this play is just accepted "gamesmanship" as practice at the professional level.
Tee
----------------------------------
If their not going to call the second play interference and then call the first play obstruction I think they should go back to the drawing board and let people know just what latitude they actualy do have.
Something seems to be out of order. Talk about consistency, sheez, G.
[Edited by Gee on Aug 8th, 2004 at 10:36 AM]
|