Thread: Foul pop
View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 12, 2010, 02:00pm
UmpJM UmpJM is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
"Intentional allowing" is not part of the rules. Compare INT with a thrown ball. R1 batted ball to F6, who starts a 6-4-3 DP. If R1 stops and "intentionally allows" the throw to hit him, are you calling INT? I'm not.

You're not getting this batter for INT because he "intentionally allowed" the ball to hit him, you're getting him for failing to move. And that's not what the rule says.
Michael,

Why do you think this should be treated any differently than:

Quote:
Of course, a runner may still be guilty of intentional interference even after an infielder deflects the ball if the runner deliberately deflects the ball or allows it to strike him when he could have reasonably avoided it.
This is from the MLBUM discussion of a runner being hit by a deflected batted ball, but I would think the same principle would apply - with equity.

JM
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote