Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone
" First of all I have to ask, do you continue to stay in the courtroom and try and covince the jury your are right after they have ruled against you?"
Somehow, I just can't believe that you STILL don't agree.  |
In a recent thread, a boisterous group of individuals stated the possible outcome of a game was based on the determination of whether or not interference as defined by the rules applied to the OP. It was determined by the majority opinion that it was impossible to interfere with an errant throw.
When badgered for a ruling, caseplay or authoritative opinion, members of the group simply refused to reply. Other members from both sides sat on the sidelines not wanting to enter the fray while both sides repeatedly stated which rules applied or did not apply. Well, now the ball is back in your court. I still have simple interference. Of course I try to make it as least complicated as possible.
No slight-of-hand magic here.
I made myself clear in post #1.
Wendelstedt and Roder's ruling were available long ago.
Does it answer OP in original thread? I'll never know because it was deleted.
All along, I thought GA Umpire was relying on previous experience and knowledge
How does WR compare to OP, to Roder? Nor do I wish to tell-it-all-by-myself-all-over-again.
I see members of the discussion have been influenced by previous blind-test results.
Funny how I managed to slip in Roder's opinion, prior to Wendies.
To answer your question. Interference. Why? See Roder.
Let me know when valid blind-test results from Roder's decision are back.
Read your interp from start to finish, especially the part underneath your BOLD emphasis.
See Roder, Pg 115-116. "Interference by an Offensive Teammate"
Read VI, VI(b), VI(1), VI(2), Penalty (a),
Note ruling for interference without a play, and Ex 1.