Quote:
Here is the portion of 3.15, "Rule 3.15 Comment: The question of intentional or unintentional interference shall be decided on the basis of the person’s action. For example: a bat boy, ball attendant, policeman, etc., who tries to avoid being touched by a thrown or batted ball but still is touched by the ball would be involved in unintentional interference. If, however, he kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what his thought may have been.
Now your going to sit there and tell me that the interference that is referred to here is specifically with a thrown ball? Yes 5.08 is supported by 3.15, but not solely on this play. Oh, and by the way, I cited BRD 308 "Inteference By: On-Deck Batter" an OBR3.15 , in the early pages of the previous thread.
Strike three, your out, go sit down.
|
Yes. Did you not read Mr Roder's interp provided by Mr Davies?
What is your dissatisfaction with one caseplay provided by CC6?
Is it just me, or we are all using interference rules to prove one point or the other. Somehow my reading skill are not that good. For example, in my BRD 208 Equipment Loose on the Field and 300 "Inteference By: On-Deck Batter" If the ball should strike him
when and where, alive and in play, play on!
[BRD emphasis] (Booth and eTeamz 10/30/2001) I also concurred with this call in the OP near the ODC, attempting to avoid thrown ball near the ODC, blue.
So now you throw one more rule under the bus.
Not one person has explained why BRD ties to OP.
Booth posted Interference July 2009, talked out of it.
DG, Interference July 2009, talked out of it.
mbyron posted interference or not and then applied unintentional interference ruling amounting to no interference. {Only person supporting interference by rule and no interference by opinion.}
Fritz, SLAS all posted interference. In summation HTBT.
Is there another Booth? If not I would ask him to offer his opinion of the play one more time.
FACT. The people who posted supportive evidence for interference in the OP were talked out of it because the catcher didn't need the space on ERRANT throw {bounce or not}. Is that your reasoning here? SLAS and I were expecting to explain why this is a false assumption and have hit a backstop.
FACT. Name persons in support of no interference, other than Bobbybananaduck and two in this thread who also posted an argument. Anyone who has difference of an opinion and states a rule to support it is told it does not apply to the OP. See definition and rules posted in pages 1-4 when the SAump post count was ZERO.
No interference is an illogical, unreasonable position to support the OP unless none of the rules for interference apply {summation of 20+ posts} . You want to use 3.15 and a play at 1B when unintentional interference does not support play at HP. Well then, why not use 7.08b, 7.09d and 7.11?
FACT. When I wanted to treat ODH as bat boy, which did apply at HP, in my first post in OP; Tee {deleted}, SDS {OF ball boy} and JD Mara {monkey} stated it was
ridiculous. Tee, subconsciously, said to treat ODH as part of the field {Not Equipment}. It didn't make any sense at the time. Both bat boy or base coach allow for unintentional interference in 3.15. I have a clue what part of field means and how it applies to OP. Where is the base coach part of the field? Now you guys want to treat the ODH as an umpire {see 5.08}.
When will he be treated as an ODH? SLAS to me!
eTeamz? Oh pleaze. The Wendelstedt boys have to be laughing at authoritative opinion frome eTeamz.