Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoachJM
As described, the original play is almost certainly a violation by the R1 of the FPSR. I say it that way, because I didn't see the play. The pivot man may have "gone out of his way" to intentionally hit the R1 with the throw, rather than legitimately trying to complete the DP. The "slow" R1 may have been initiating a legal slide when the throw hit him. But, as presented, it's a violation. So, there are certainly elements of judgement, but whether or not the pivot man "should have" been able to throw around the runner ain't one of them.
|
How do you know that "as presented" it's a violation? As written, it was extremely unclear as to whether or not the fielder threw the ball at the runner intentionally to draw an interference call. Unless you see the play with your own two eyes, it is really impossible to accurately call this play. For instance, it was mentioned that the runner was hit in the thigh with the ball. Was he a midget? What kind of throw would hit the runner in the thigh? Most certainly not one that would make it to first base! I can easily invision F4 thinking, "well, I can't get 2 here, so I'm nailin' this joker. That'll teach him to slide!"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoachJM
I challenge any of you to provide a credible rule reference, case play, or interpretation that says I misconstrue how the rule should be applied. If you can, I'm all ears (eyes?), because I don't particularly like the rule either. I don't think one exists. Yet.
|
I think what Carl wrote about Rumbles Rambling in the BRD summed it up pretty well, in that the interpretation came out in 1998, and its wording has not yet been incorporated into either the rule or the casebook. If it was such a good way of ruling, the Federation rules makers should have included it in the language of the rule itself, so threads like this would be unnecessary.