Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by DG
[BFED wants this called interference, even when the throw was not a quality throw.
|
I think you need to read situations 19 and 20 together. IF the runner is in a position to (potentially) cause an errant throw, call the interference. If the runner isn't in position to cause an errant throw, don't call interference, even if the trhow hits the runner while the runner is out of the lane.
[/B]
|
I agree that 19 and 20 have to go hand-in-hand to make the Fed's intent clear. Still, the line that is drawn between the no-call in Sitch 19 and the interference in Sitch 20 is a pretty fine one. I think it's "simpler" to teach umpires that in both of those situations, the absence of a quality throw means there's no interference. It seems a more nuanced judgment than "quality throw" is being expected of the umpire in judging interference in Sitch 20.
Fri Jan 21, 2005, 02:51pm
Threaded Mode
