Quote:
Originally Posted by robbie
Umpjong:
Exactly!!
The batter DOES interfere with the catcher's attempt to retire the stealing R1. If it were not for the actions of the interfering batter, the F2 would have thrown to retire the R1 and would not have thrown to retier the batter who was interfering by drawing a throw when he was where he had no business being.
|
That really doesn't make much sense when you read it again. To interfere, he would have had to do so intentionally. What is so hard to follow here? The catcher threw the ball at the batter. How did the batter compel the catcher to throw the ball at him? A magnetic baseball and a steel plate in his a$$? He wasn't drawing a throw. Where do you get that? F2 was trying to pick off R1, who was heading for 2nd base. The batter wasn't trying to get him to throw the ball at all. Hell, he thought it was ball 4. F2 should have known the situation, but then again...it's Little League!!! You say he would have thrown to retire the runner? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Once again...he is a Little Leaguer. He might have thrown the ball into the dugout for all you know.
Bottom line again... in mathematical terms:
thrown ball - intent to interfere = 0.