|
I thank you for your explanation. I don't have my books from 1990 but certainly will accept your knowledge and history.
Now I will ask questions.
(1) Wouldn't all rules for this situation be more consistent if games played under Fed gave benefit of doubt to defense as discussed?? (and that is within the limits of the rules.) I would like to think that the consistency would take priority over "history" of the interpretation, and
(2) aren't you providing offense with little penalty for the infraction of interference by retired BR by putting them in position of having little to lose. I've seen that happen and they will continually "test" ump to see if he is gutsy enough to make call. (and I have seen many who are not gutsy enough to make the call. If it can be seen from Cleveland it must have happened, but if those in Chicago saw it, it wasn't obvious enough).
That is why I do not like to see offending team gain benefit of doubt. They will keep testing in attempts to gain an advantage. Non-offending has done nothing wrong to be at disadvantage. If I err in my JUDGMENT, I don't want the error to go against potentially disadvantaged team.
|