Quote:
Originally Posted by OCASA
I don't think he is mixing the rules, I believe he is pointing out the rule books position of different scenarios. All of which hold the the runner (or batter) accountable. And if this runner saw the catcher starting to throw the ball and turn her back to the catcher and allowed her self to block the F5, then there could be a questionable call. I don't believe anyone here has the cahunas(SP?) to make such a call. Perhaps the reason they took the word "intentionally" out of the rule was because to many people were pulling off a good "acting" job. Without the word "intentional" you are forced to watch your P's and Q's.
But it does leave it wide open to start hitting runners, as well as runners blocking a baseman by casually walking back to a base with a slight lean to the left or right.
my two cents.
|
If we are going to stray from the rule being discussed and discuss extraneous issues and nonapplicable rules and even you would admit this is a judgement issue -
Tell my why I want to protect a catcher with control problems and skill issues attempting improbable waste of time pick offs at 3B where a runner is literally in the process of returning to 3B when they should be just returning the ball to the pitcher?
This is dumb move catcher -- so why am I looking to help that? Why should my judgment and cajones favor a call in that?
My mind is saying "wow that catcher sure was dumb".
Why should it say "Runner is out for interfering"?
If we can get to the heart of that, the judgement of the play - maybe we can get a better understanding of the thought process that determines whether the runner committed an act of INT or the catcher was just commiting a dumb play.