|
I think I can see where Sarge is coming from and where the disconnect is. In sitch one, he assumes that the reason this hit ODB was that it was a horrid throw. If it was really a horrid throw, then it was not interference, as the ball hitting ODB did not interfere with the opportunity to get an out.
However, I think the intent of the OP was that the ball had gotten away from catcher ... over near the ODB - and that the ball was actually thrown just fine - in which case we have INT, intent or not.
In the second, he seems to be making a similar assumption (my apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth).
I think the key here is - ODB has an obligation to not get in the way. If she was contacted by a thrown ball that WAS thrown well enough to be an attempt to get an out (with the benefit of the doubt given to the defense), then it's interference, regardless of intent. But if this throw was not good enough to have a chance for an out, then it's nothing (we can't reward defense for throwing the ball at ODB, if such a throw was not at least sort of toward first base).
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|