I didn't change a thing.
 

Me thinks you had an obstructed view when you read my post. I suggest you read the second section again and I'll make it easy on you and quote the section. Read it slowly.(:>) Grin, grin, large grin.

"The interference of a runner with a fielder in the act of fielding a "BATTED" ball 'does not have to be intentional'. ANY ACTION, HOWEVER, THAT IS TAKEN BY THE RUNNER WHICH IS PAPALBY DESIGNED TO INTERFERE SHOULD BE RULED INTERFERENCE. THIS INCLUDES TIMING HIS ADVANCEMENT TO INTENTIONALLY CONFUSE OF(SIC) HINDER THE FIELDER."

Thrown ball was never mentioned in that section which is closer to the original play. I only quoted the first section because of the words "VISUAL INTERFERENCE". G.

Re: I didn't change a thing.
 

Oh, my mistake. I guess the following, addressed to me and to which my response logically belongs, was posted by a different "Gee."


<b>Garth,

Would you call interference if there was a throw to the plate from the centerfielder and the runner on second stood there waiving his hands as the ball was coming in to the cutoff man behind him?

How about the runner going to first, within the running lane, after an uncaught third strike, waiving his hands in front of F3. Is that Visual interference?

How about the call last year where they did call visual OBSTRUCTION on the F5 and/or F6 who got in the way of the R3 on a tag up. Is visual OBSTRUCTION allowed but not visual interference?

On the original play if it isn't interference I've got unsportsmanlike conduct and an out. G.</b>

That post concerned Visual Interference which you say does not exist anywhere in the rules on a thrown ball or batted ball.

You continue to evade my two most recent post's concerning JEA's Pro Interp on VISUAL INTERFERENCE on a BATTED BALL. G.

I evaded nothing. You are the one who denied changing the discussion, then somehow justified changing it when confronted with your own words.

I see nothing in your posts about the JEA calling for visual interference with a BATTED BALL. What have I missed? Show me where in your posts you say that the JEA mentions visual interference with a Batted ball.

If we can identify where Jim has made that statement, I'll happily contact him and ask for an explanation for the contradiction that would exist between what he teaches and what you allege he has written.

Your a waste of skin as well as my time. G

Talk about evasion.

Your concession is noted.

As my grandfather used to say, "If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question."

I didn't ask a question, I stated a fact. It seems your were unable to decipher it in denial. Denial is more than a river in Egypt,(WJC). G.

I stand corrected again, you didn't ask a question. You asked at least three:


<b>Garth,

Would you call interference if there was a throw to the plate from the centerfielder and the runner on second stood there waiving his hands as the ball was coming in to the cutoff man behind him?

How about the runner going to first, within the running lane, after an uncaught third strike, waiving his hands in front of F3. Is that Visual interference?

How about the call last year where they did call visual OBSTRUCTION on the F5 and/or F6 who got in the way of the R3 on a tag up. Is visual OBSTRUCTION allowed but not visual interference?
...G</b>

Damn, second mistake I made today...no denying it.

God knows how I hate to say this: Carl was right.

Off your meds?

Oh well, on the bright side, that would be a waste of less skin now that I've lost 28 pounds.

BTW, the contraction of "you" and "are" is you're.

"Your" is a possessive adjective usually used to describe a noun such as "your understanding of the ruling leaves much to be desired" wherein "understanding" is the noun and "your" describes it as belonging to you.

ZING! ZING! I haven't had this much fun since that light sabre fight in "Star Wars"...

Garth and Gee....

Wah Wah Wah.....one of you take the high road, ignore the other, geez, your pacifiers are in the mail.

You're a little late with your input. We both quit posting on this topic a week ago. But thanks for your insight.