Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
I never faulted the catcher, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with that. I said that if the catcher wasn't there, the runner would have continued forward and landed face-first. In fact from the description, she would have continued forward from her knees, never rising to her feet. There's no crash without a runner being on her feet.
|
I kind of took it that way too. If you weren't saying that to fault the catcher ... then why did you mention the catcher at all. It doesn't matter what the runner would have or would not have done.
Also - you use "crash" like it's a term we should be looking for. "Crash" is not illegal (in fact, when it IS used properly, it really means a collision for which neither party is at fault --- kind of the opposite of what you're implying)
More precisely, there's no interference in this play.