|
My initial thoughts focused on the catcher intentionally attempting to make contact to bait a call. That made me think the runner was nearly out of the way with the runner approaching the plate.
Still, after re-reading your post, herein lies the answer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by J.D. Long
On review of the play between the umpires, the catcher ran out of his way to run into the batter. If he would have moved either toward home or the runner, he would not have come in contact with the batter. There was also discussion on if the catcher did this on purpose to cause interference.
[QUOTE]
As the catcher turns to go to the plate, what is he looking at:
the runner is to his left
the plate is to his right
and the batter is dead in the middle
What's the batter doing there? He should be long gone.
This is not a case of a baited call. This is a case of a catcher needing to get where he wants to in order to do his job, and a spectator (the batter) being in his way.
Interference without a doubt. Batter has no business being in this location where any potential play could involve him.
Of course, the final judgment call is that which was made on the field. This is NOT protestable under any circumstances, even if a manager talked an umpire into changing his call on the field. It still remains a judgment call finalized by the responsible official on the field. If this IS under protest, to even acknowledge a protest is a step in undermining your system.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|