Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Carl, I agree strongly with Bob's statement here.
You and I have had discussions regarding who gets the benefit of doubt. I stand strong that I will not provide the offending team the benefit of any doubt. The batter hindering the catcher in your situation IS a violation which can possibly cause advantage to be gained. Any doubt in my mind as to whether the defense could have got the runner out at 2nd will go to the defense. After all, the defense has done absolutely nothing wrong to end up on the short end of this call.
|
Bfair:
You're laying
your opinions onto the FED rule, probably because you don't it. I've heard that song before: "Hell, he strikes out and interferes, I don't care. I'm banging out the runner."
That's just wrong, Bubba.
The FED philsophy, while you may not like it, is a modern approach to interference. The OBR believes that when the offense interferes, somebody should pay. That's an eye for an eye, the OLD TESTAMENT approach to sin.
FED is NEW TESTAMENT. If the interference didn't prevent an out, why call one? Simply, send the runner back.
You may not like it, as your language makes clear, but to ignore the significant philosophic and practical difference is -- to put it mildly -- unethical.
Bob says "may" or "might" is sufficient. That's not the history of the rule. I said "certain," and that's what the FED said when the change was made. If the umpire is certain the interference prevented an out, then he will grant the out. Any benefit of the doubt goes to the offense.