Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
Frankly, I'm a little surprised by this interp. First off, the listed rule only refers to umpire decisions that may put a team in jeopardy. There was no decision made here.
But by using 10-2-3m as a rule reference, it opens the door to coaches wanting other forms of umpire "hindrances" covered by the same rule. A base umpire trips a runner, and the offensive coach could argue that 10-2-3m should be used, just like it's used in this interp scenario.
|
I agree 100%. The ruling is consistent with other teachings... but I'd prefer they codify the idea that if there is NO play, and something that might otherwise have been interference happens - and that CREATES a play, we should kill it. Pulling out rule 10-2-3 is bad precedent.