Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
Sorry; I misinterpreted Dakota's comment when he wrote, " Really, that's all Torre had to say. He wouldn't have to get into the fact that the interference is not with the throw, but with the catch, since the call is not protestable to begin with." I thought Torre actually said that!  |
No worries. I suspect that Torre called Scioscia and spoke to him on the phone. Scioscia's remark to the press, which says basically that we have to live with umpire mistakes, make it sound as if Torre suggested the matter was a judgment call.
This is all speculation, of course. Kinda like figuring out the Politburo!
I agree with you, however, that Scioscia misunderstands the rule: his appeal was appropriately lodged (he challenged the rule interpretation rather than a judgment call) and appropriately denied (he misinterpreted the rule).