Quote:
Originally posted by BigUmp56
Windy:
Please explain how this is "batters interference" in the original play?
If it's interference at all, it would have to be runners interference where intent is required to interfere with a thrown ball. It's really not that complicated. I'm not saying this couldn't be interference. That would depend on judgment as to whether or not there was intent. However, to say intent is not required, which is what your original contention was is incorrect.
Professional Interpretation: A batter has completed his time at-bat anytime he hits a fair ball, or he hits a foul ball that is caught in flight for an out. He also is considered to have completed his time at-bat anytime he is declared out under any provision of Rules 6.05,6.06, and 6.07. In addition, a batter is considered to have legally completed his time at-bat anytime he is awarded first base under the provisions of Rule 6.08, or he becomes a runner under the provisions of 6.09.
Tim.
|
Apprantley you forgot when I brought this up about 8 pages earlier in this thread. Remember, when I mentioned that everyone was using the term batter or batter/runner. The PBUC ruling said base runner. I mentioned something about this being runners' interference instead or it being a possible typo. Then you went off on one of you rants about how everybody but me knows what a batter or batter/runner is.
Now it seems to me, your echoing the very same thing that I was pointing out.
So which is it, dill hole? Make up your freaking mind already. Everytime you try to make someone look stupid, all you accomplish is the reverse. Again, you've stepped in a big pile of yourself, slipped, and fell all in it.
Why you will alway be a "Haagy".