Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn
This is exactly correct. I honestly have no problem with an umpire seeing this play and ruling INT. I have a huge problem (obviously) with those who think it should have been called because the catcher double clutched - i.e. those who refuse to read and understand this rule.
|
I agree. I’ve been following/contributing to this thread, and I never read(wrote) anyone saying that the double-clutch was the reason for an interference call. I did state in post#6 that I thought “F2 doubled clutched because of the RLV”. And whether you have interference or not, it is obvious that B did violate the RL rule.
If you read carefully (and didn’t jump to conclusions), you probably won’t see anyone claiming that the double clutch was the reason for the interference. The double clutch can’t be the reason for interference because no interference has occurred yet. Without a quality throw (except in Fed), there is nothing yet to be interfered with.
PU had a throw F1/F2, a force out at HP...then he has F2 double clutching...why the double clutch?...because B was violating the RL rule. It is not interference yet, but the double clutch might alert an umpire that interference might occur soon.
Then F3 drops the throw. In pro ball, you might need the throw to touch B before calling RLI (F3 should make the gloving). In Fed, they had a POE a few years ago that even said a quality throw wasn't required for RLI (any throw would do). If B violated the RL rule and a throw came from HP area, we had RLI (bust the cheating B). I don't do D-1 NCAA ball. Has NCAA opined on whether the throw needs to touch B for interference? The video is not clear, but the throw either did touch B or came very close to doing so.
If it's a toss up, I'm screwing the one who was cheating. It might be a tough sell, but I'm not going to not call it because it requires an explanation to OHC.