Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Here is a shocker, the players are wrong. The runner has every right to attempt to advance to the base and should not be expected to surrender simply because it appears they will be put out. That runner cannot just disappear into thin air and should stay on the same line as they were advancing.
This is actually beneficial to the fielder. They don't have a clue, but it is. If the runner does what the fielder suggests, he may "veer" in the same direction as the player relaying the throw. Then the fielder will ***** about that. If the runner stays the course, the fielder can predetermine where they need to throw the ball. Not much different than a catcher knowing that the batter must stay in the box, so s/he knows where and where not to throw the ball before the play even develops.
|
Thanks Mike, that's helpful. I had never thought that staying the course actually helps the defense, but I see the logic.
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
That is either one fast runner or an extremely slow third baseman. If the ball isn't even out of the glove, it doesn't sound like you had much of a play developing. However, it is your judgment as to whether the defense's effort was impeded.
|
Actually I believe the 3rd baseman was playing back or he may have juggled the ball a bit before securing it. I can't remember exactly, but he got to the base a few steps before the runner and was turning to make his throw when she bumped into him.
Am I right in thinking that the fielder must have a legitimate chance to get the out before I call interference? The rule book doesn't say specifically. It uses language similar to "opportunity to make an out". One could argue that if there was no way the throw could have beat the runner there was no opportunity. Is that how I should look at it?
Thanks!
Randall