Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP25
I never said it was.
|
True, you keep on saying it's not and making that the basis of your argument... why do you chide me for "not knowing BI is DDB" when we're not talking about BI at all?
Quote:
This incident has to be either of the following:
1. Batter interference, which by rule it cannot be (though the PU's actions appear to indicate he was treating it a such).
|
I agree it cannot be - I don't agree the PU's actions indicate anything.
Quote:
|
2. Interference by a batter-runner or runner.
|
Exactly.
Quote:
|
In this case, the interference has to be intentional, which it's not. If it is not, then interference and the out should not—cannot—be called. If they were, then the incorrect ruling was, in fact, made.
|
You keep saying this, repeatedly. Nevermind that they've not told us ANYthing on this sitch so it's conceivable, while improbable, that PU had intent for some reason on this play. You've been asked repeatedly (by more than just me) to back that assertion up by rule. This is the crux of the argument. What rule do you use to back up your assertion that it HAS TO BE intentional to be called?
1.72: ... the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire, or spectator that denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable.
12.2.4: The batter-runner may not interfere with a fielder's attempt to throw...
Yes ... 12.2.5 mentions intent - but 12.2.5 is not an exception to 12.2.4 and doesn't invalidate 12.2.4.