Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
No matter how much we hate or disagree about a rule, consistency makes life and umpiring better. If the ASA goes with the other two biggest rules bodies, that would enhance consistency.
|
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
- Oscar Wilde
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
The argument about ... whether a play is needed to interfere {is highly emotional}.
|
No it isn't. It is definitional. The rule doesn't say "block" the catch or "screw up" the catch or "get in the way of" the catch - it says "interferes with" the fielder taking the throw. "Interference" in the rule book has a definition. Definitionally, it requires a play. It is not emotional.
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
Even if the rule said interfering with a play instead of a catch;
|
Actually, the ASA book does not say interfering with the catch. It says interfering with the fielder making the catch. The rule book is not required to say "inteference, as defined in Rule 1, with the fielder" - the definition of "inteference" holds throughout the book.
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
the throw to 1st on a BB is a legitimate play to:
1) keep the BR there
2) decoy another runner
3) setup for an appeal of infractions like missed bases, abandonment, etc.
4) maybe even catcher thinking U3K instead of ball four
|
If there is a play, there is no need for any interp mandating this. The rule does not say the running lane DOES NOT apply to a BB. It merely says it requires there to be a play.
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
The issue is not whether any of us like the ruling or the idea or whatever,
|
Yes it is.
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
it's whether this is an accurate interp. of the rules as written.
|
It is an unnecessary interp. And a silly one. And a bad one. And ...