Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
I don't buy that logic. There is only one reason F2 would be throwing the ball to first, and that's because she's making a play on the BR. We don't judge whether or not the BR would have been safe on the play as criteria to determine if the play would have been successful or not.
A runner goes into second base standing up and collides into F4 as F4 turns to make a throw to first on the DP. Does the BU go to his/her BU partner to determine if the BR would have easily beaten the throw?
RH Batter steps out of the box to look at her coach at third for a sign, and she causes F2 to throw wildly as F2 attempts to pick off a runner at third. Does the PU get his/her BU's opinion if the runner would have made it back to third easily?
I hope you answered No on those examples. I have never seen in a game, nor never have been told in a clinic, that partners consult with each other prior to making an interference ruling. Heck, in the OP, you never know if the BR is going to miss first after she overruns it, or if she's going to turn toward second after she makes it to first. The catcher's throw would certainly be a play attempt then, would it not?
|
The part about consulting with your partner is a red herring (IMO), since the discussion is what is and what is not interference, not what you can and what you cannot see.
Without a play, there is no interference. That is basic. Merely throwing the ball around is not making a play. If there is no reasonable possibility of an out, what is the play?