|
Carl and T:
I'm assuming you meant your comments to be sarcastic; so first I'll say, "Shame on you". Secondly, as much as I admire Carl and Tim for their knowledge and experience . . . I will vehemently defend my earlier position. Contrary to Cowboy Fan's allegation, I did read the entire Rule (6.06(c)including the Exception: and the italicized explanation. I was discussing why a professional umpire would elect to invoke one rule over another. The original question, if you recall, is "is there a difference between FED and OBR".
To continue the discussion with Carl . . . all the "Exception" says is that SOMEONE is going to be called out on the interference. If the runner advancing to home is called out (by 7.09(d)), then the batter is not that someone.
I can certainly agree with Carl that the coach could POSSIBLY have a valid argument that 7.09(d) was not invoked; but if U1 was using 6.06(c) as justification for his ruling, contradictory to 7.09 or not, wouldn't he be on pretty solid footing? I can all concede that 7.09(d) should have been the preferred call; but not the exclusive one.
In fact, 6.06(c) has a much more detailed explanation on how to handle batter interference. "If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call 'interference.' The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference . . . and all runners must return to the last base that was . . . legally touched at the time of the interference."
The excuse that Carl proposes (the umpires may only see this situation a couple times in their career)isn't logical. I'm sure U1 could just as easily have said, "Interference, Strike on the batter, R3 is out." Most MLB umpires have indeed officiated at lower levels; and have more than likely seen the situation more than once. After all, he was familiar with 6.06(c), wasn't he? Why would he not be familiar with 7.09 as well? You're certainly not suggesting he didn't know about the "Exception" either; are you?
If indeed you are suggesting that, then your sarcasm and criticism of my discussion would have to apply to him as well. Yes?
Jerry
|