Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
You've been arguing something different and stronger. You've been arguing that the runner's right to remain on the base is absolute. That's why you're protecting him back to the base, no matter whether the contact is incidental or intentional.
I've been arguing that the runner's right to remain on the base is limited by the fielder's right to field a batted ball. That's why I distinguish between the two cases: incidental contact, play on. Intentional contact, protect the runner.
|
No, I was arguing that we don't know from the OP exactly what F6 did. Was it intentional? It sounded that way to me, so I was basing it on an intentional act. Go back and read some of my posts. I said that I didn't believe that F6 could accidentally knock the runner off the base, make the catch, then tag the runner. I said if the contact was strong enough to knock the runner off the base and incapacitate him so much that he couldn't get back on his base, then it would have had to have been one helluva collision, which most likely would have resulted in both players falling to the ground in a pile. So, by deduction, I reasoned that F6 threw R2 a shoulder on purpose, made the catch, then got his DP by cheating. That is what I have argued from the beginning. I do not buy into it being "incidental contact" in this case, because it just doesn't add up when you look at all the facts like Perry Mason would. That's how I learned to analyze things as a small boy, and have carried on that tradition.
Your witness, Mr. Burger.