Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
All this would be wonderful if interference was truly called this way, but it isn't.
|
Oh, sure it is. You heard Peter's estimate. A couple of us have even admitted it on this board. So, right or wrong, it is being called that way. Amateur umpires everywhere are creating their own kind of delayed dead ball to see if contact is merely incidental or if it truly interferes with the fielder's attempt to make a play.
You can get away with a slight delay because seldom is the initial interference call heard over the excitement of a play anyway. So you just kill play as soon as you know whether the fielder was interfered with or not -- usually a second or so after the contact -- not much time at all.
I'm not trying to muddy any waters. I know very well how interference is called and enforced. I just wanted to discuss how many umpires aren't doing it by the book, and whether how they are doing it is actually a good idea -- because I actually think it is.
[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 14th, 2004 at 01:29 AM]
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
I see your point, Jim. Kinda like having DPI in football, "hey offence, ya wanna take the penalty or decline it?" This would just create problems, IMHO. Lots of umps have problems with type B obs, now we have type B int. Although int is a bit easier enforcement than obs for some. We had this one ump this past season for my kids 9-10's. You know those F3's that stare at the ball heading for the gap and just stand on the bag, obstruct BR? This guy would automatically add a bag to where they ended up, so he'd tell us to keep em running, kid would get thrown out by 20 feet at third, he would give em the bag. THAT was frustrating!!!