Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
Actually, so does your ruling, since the OP did not say what the batter's foot was doing or not doing. You assumed it was not moving. But, the OP did not say that. The OP does not say where the ball went or whether it died right there, rebounded or was imparted additional velocity by the moving foot.
You assumptions seem reasonable given the paucity of information, but they still are assumptions.
|
They are based on the information given...(I didn't read anything in to the play) but you can turn it into what ever you want...YOU might be able to find something there, if you try hard enough...but based on the info available (again, I didn't read anything into the play)...I still have NOTHING!
And it wouldn't matter to me what the foot was doing...unless it was something intentional...if the ball bounced off the mitt and into the foot, thats probably not interference!! If the ball hits the foot,
as was stated, and not the foot hitting the ball....easy enough for me to figure out!