Thu Dec 07, 2000, 05:27am
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 813
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
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.
|
Carl, I didn't say I wouldn't apply the rule as Fed states it. For you to imply that I would circumvent it is highly improper. For you to question my ethics I feel is one step beyond that.
Your response makes me quote wording from Fed 8.4.2g :
"... If a retired runner interferes, and in the JUDGMENT of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out."
"in the judgment of the umpire" is what I am commenting on Carl. If the runner clearly had the base obtained, he is returned to first due to the interference. I don't circumvent the rule as you seemed to indicate I would. However, if there is ANY DOUBT in my mind that the defense may have been able to retire runner a 2nd, I call runner out due to result of interference by retired runner (BR). Somewhere in reading the rule here I missed wording that official had to be "certain" runner would have been retired. Please advise where your statement "If the umpire is certain the interference prevented an out" is obtained from so I may review it. I would further add that the wording "COULD have been put out" rather than "would have been put out" somewhat substantiates my position.
Philosophy of 'Never giving the offending team the benefit of doubt' is used in determining JUDGMENT portion of call and then applying that judgment according to the rules. It IS my opinion. I do not wish to impose it upon anyone, however, I do wish to promote it. It is what was provided to me (in writing) by those training Fed rules at the state level.
I don't mean to kick a dead horse here, Carl. I do feel I have the right to defend my position and ethics when I feel they are improperly questioned. Again, I have tried to do so not only by opinion, but by documentation.
|