Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone
OBR 3.15, after notes, says that "The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the persons actions." Then it gives some examples. All of your rule citiations DO NOT in black and white clearly state the the ODH is NOT eligible to be there. In fact, he is a player that is "preparing to enter the game, or coaching at first or third base" see3.17.
I quote the "coaching" because, reference is made to coaches in determining intereference, by the action of the person. See PLAY after 3.15 note.
|
We'll never know about the possible play at the plate in the OP. The ODH ruined a climatic moment in the game. He should be
flogged by both teams, fans and the media. It is about the only time the ODH can be found guilty of interference.
What are the odds? SLAS suggested he wouldn't like to be the ump that missed it and then awarded another 2 bases from TOI/DBT. That's a pretty high backstop for any team to climb over. It amounts to throwing your glove at a ball 1000's of times and pretending you didn't mean it when the glove makes contact. I hope this analogy isn't as ridiculous as the one that started a
comeback.
The unintentional actions of people in 3.15 support interference if the person did not do
everything possible to avoid interference. Pete Booth, DG, mbyron, SLAS and I have maintained the ODH has not done everything possible. Others have stated the definition of interference does not apply to a thrown ball because the catcher did not need the space, etc. Now some of that supporting material falls to the wayside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone
By your own choosing, you have determined that an ODH that is holding a bat, that is accidentally struck by a thrown ball, (the op gave me no indication that it wasn't accidental) should be called interference.
I am still not buying off on your summation Counslor, and your appeal is denied.
But, as you have implied, a good discussion over a beer is always welcomed.
|
JDMara, SLAS myself and others were "blogging" about the time of the "expiration" date. I was trying to be open and absorb info so as not to misrepresent facts in the rulebook when the ticking stopped. Others were more interested in protecting the results of their highly
rooted support system, one that continually repeats
No interference without providing any authoritative opinion.