Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives
Using this logic the catcher could step out in front of the plate and the batter would not swing, thus there would be no CI.
Translation: I think you are incorrect.
|
Rich,
If the catcher steps out in front of the plate to receive a pitch, he has
de jure interfered.
If he precludes the opportunity for the batter to attempt, he has interfered with the opportunity to attempt and is held liable.
Translation: I think you are incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
FOUL, as it was called.
|
DG,
In the play in the video....
1. I am fairly certain the PU never saw that the bat and F2's mitt came into contact.
2. I can not tell for certain whether the ball and the bat ever came into contact.
3. If they did, I am fairly certain that the bat-mitt contact preceded the bat-ball contact.
4. Foul would only be the correct call if the bat-ball contact preceded the bat-mitt contact. (Maybe you saw it differently than I, and I saw it wrong. Like I said, I can't tell for sure from the video.)
5. Who (of the players) "screwed up" here?
6. Who should be held liable?
7. How?
JM