Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TXMike
I do not want to make a cheap call on a bat because that could bring with it yet another flag. A muff is a muff and a bat is a bat. It defintiely needs to be a bat to be called a bat. In principle I do not think B should be held responsible for being hit by a ball that was already muffed by A. Problem is that if A muffs and then B tries to play the ball but muffs do we exempt that muff also? It would have to be narrowly defined someway, perhaps another definition of what touching is.
|
I would go with this: if B has enough time to see it coming and dodge, or if he moves into the path of the ball, and then he chooses to play the ball and muffs it, then his touch should not be ignored. On the other hand, if A bats the ball right at him and B muffs it in a more-or-less reflexive grab at the ball, then B's touch should be ignored, even though he tried to play the ball.