Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
There is a strong probability that it was intentional. Even though the evidence was not in place in the OP, the coach was notorious for teaching his batters to intentionally interfere. That's what I was basing it on. If the PU judges the intent, then it would be INT. Let's put it this way: Had I been the umpire, and thought for one second that the batter-runner interfered intentionally, I would have called INT.
|
I would have also, if for one second thought it was intentional. But the Op gave no indication.