Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeintothem
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.
|
The original poster made it clear this catcher was picking runners off third base the entire game, so your attacks on the catchers skills are not necessary.
The poster has already conceded to agree with a "no call" early in this thread (and if I understand correctly, is in his favor since this was his runner), and already stated it would have to be a judgment call.
I can see how this could turn up into an interference call. And possibly a brawl on the field. If it was my runner I would say something to them and let know they walked a fine line, and took a big chance.