Your judgment regarding whether or not the catcher could have retired the runner is irrelevant. The runner was advancing, the catcher attempted the play, the interference was judged to have occurred (despite your judgment not being enforced or advised).
Batter interference is rampant in Texas.
Many have learned to come across the plate on a steal of 2B since most umpires won't call it. IMO, much of it is intentional. I'd bet most times I see players swing so hard they lose their balance and cross the plate occurs during steals of 2B.
Quote:
Originally posted by His High Holiness
If this is truly interference by rule, I can think of a number of weird situations that could result. Consider this:
Everytime a batter steps across the plate with runners on, the catcher could make a throw somewhere and claim interference. The fact that no one was stealing and he had no chance to get an out would be irrelevant. So we are forced to ask:
When is a steal, not a steal?
Peter
|
Even if a batter falls across the plate, I'd think you'd have to rule there was a "legitimate" attempt to retire the runner. His mere presence outside the box does not mean interference occurred, nor would a throw by F2 mean it was a legitimate attempt to retire the runner.
As an umpire, you are a judge.
Not all your decisions will be liked, but many will agree with your judgment.
As you know, Peter, many will disagree with your judgment during a game, and then admit in the parking lot they truly agreed with your judgment. Many complaints are merely lobbying for the call to go their way.
I trust my judgment and my knowledge of the game.
Just my opinion,
Freix