|
"However, since you are a much more sane individual, Jice, I do expect that you will have some rulebook basis for your assertion, and hope you can show it to us."
Being on the road right now gentlemen I do not have the time or resources with me to support this with rulings, interpretations or documented cases. Nor may it be possible.
However, in games where the big boys shave, it is much easier to sell the fact that the throw hitting the bat was interference, (as all can clearly see), than the batter didn't intentionally interfer. Can you imagine this being replayed on TV 400 times. I guarantee you that every time, NO ONE would dispute the fact that the ball hit the bat, but you may have 800 opinions about the batters intent. Sometimes the obvious is, well, obvious.
I don't believe either WWB or I are saying that you don't have the right to call it the other way. It's your game. Were both suggesting that based upon our experience, sometimes it's just "the expected call," and heaven knows we have discussed that to death.
You are clearly entilted to your opinion.
|