View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 17, 2005, 07:55am
mcrowder mcrowder is offline
Official Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
SRW - the existence of a runner on third does not mean that there was a play. Runner was not going anywhere, and not leading off in some extraordinary way. To have interference you have to have a play that was interfered with. If there's no R1, I can't see a justification for an interference call.

The more I look at this, the more it seems PU was ruling this a strike, and strike 3. We have an odd angle, so it's hard to know if this was close to the zone. Batter does put the hand forward, so it's possible.
Reply With Quote