Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
Even with a runner one step from 3B, the defense should still be afforded the opportunity to make a throw. After all, the runner could take a turn off the bag, trip over it, lose contact on a slide, whatever.
If a runner gets hit with an undeflected batted ball, we don't take into consideration whether or not a fielder behind the runner is in position to field it and make a play. Why should we take into consideration how close a runner is to a base? If we start making concessions for being just one step off, should we do the same for two steps? Three?
Yes, a Play is defined as an attempt to get an out. But there is no caveat in the definition that the out attempt must be obvious.
|
I hear you, but I'm not sure you're hearing me.
In the play we're discussing, we're talking about a catcher who did not throw the ball ... with the runner 1 step away from the base she did not throw to.
Are you really trying to say that if the batter bumped her inadvertently, you'd assume that the BUMP was the reason she didn't make a throw --- and not the fact that there was no good reason to throw the ball?
I'm pretty sure that most coaches would be on their catcher for making a throw this late - one that had nearly zero chance for an out, but some greater chance to allow another base.
I'm agreeing that in cases where there IS a throw, and the batter did something - that interference COULD be warranted even if the runner was almost there. And I'm agreeing that there could be a case for interference without a throw.
But combining the two and somehow ruling that it was the batter, and not the fact that there was most likely no out to be had here, that caused the lack of throw --- I think you're truly stretching the rules here. If there's no play to be had, MOST catchers are not going to throw it... calling an out because the batter bumped into someone that was most likely not going to throw? Extreme overreach imho.