Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Perhaps it is just more common regionally, but I see plenty of cases of a delayed pickoff. Typically, it is used against a more aggressive baserunner that uses (and often fakes using) a delayed steal. So the sequence is 1) runner gets aggressive lead, 2) catcher feints a return throw to pitcher, 3) runner leans toward advance base on the feint, 4) catcher throws behind runner in pickoff attempt.
Actually pretty common here; and it would be interference in my mind if batter out of the box is hit by a throw that appeared on line.
|
That's what I mean by more information about what was going on. Basically, was there an actual play or was the catcher making a late throw that was not going to do anything useful?
I have no problem with the interference ruling here, so long as there was an actual play and not just a pointless throw.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Yes; I did use the same phrase, cutting and pasting on the same question posed on several message boards. I have seen you do the same, Tom.
|
I have no problem with cutting and pasting answers from different boards. I noted that only to point out that you must like that characterization, and to also point out that NFHS deserved the criticism that was directed at them for that ruling; it was not irrational "sky is falling" fear-mongering.