Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Reed
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser in reply to David Emerling
And there CERTAINLY wasn't any [obstruction] before the interference occurred, which makes anything that happened afterwards quite moot.
|
Rich, at the time that the possible obstruction occurred, Marsh didn't know that there had been interference. So from his point of view, the ball is (a)live, and it is his responsibility to rule on further plays or events. According to J/R, when possible obstruction [or interference] occurs, and the umpire judges that none actually occurred, he is to signal safe (sorry, WCB), and voice "that's nothing." I can easily understand the position that no meaningful obstruction occurred, but I do think that Mientkiewicz' action constitutes possible obstruction.
Assume for a moment that the umpire judges that obstruction did not occur, but the situation requires comment. Should he signal safe, and verbalize "no ball" followed by "that's nothing?"
Dave Reed [/B]
|
That was one of my points.
You can't make the argument that Marsh didn't call obstruction BECAUSE the interference happened first. Remember, Marsh claimed to have never seen the interference. Therefore, if he thought there was obstruction, he should have called it. But he didn't.
Now, I'm not saying there *was* obstruction ... I'm simply saying that Marsh, apparently, didn't think there was any or he would have called it because, in his mind, the ball was still live.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 28th, 2004 at 02:28 AM]