View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 17, 2005, 11:24am
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
Originally posted by mcrowder
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.
mcrowder - I don't dispute that... I was merely showing/telling my "partners" (i.e.: y'all) some more info to help the decision making process.

I think either the PU called strike 3, or was in "shock" like we all are about this play... and just ruled her out, but didn't know exactly why. He didn't appear sure of his call, and he didn't signal dead ball - which he should have done anytime the pitch hits the batter. He just hammered... either an out or a strike.
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.
Reply With Quote