Interference or not

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by mick

Coach: I think it's a very well-written post. But I wish you hadn't said: Let's leave making up rules to us coaches, and you umpires just enforce the actual rules.

I've copied it in red because that's what it is, a red flag. (grin) Those people here who hate rats will seize upon that one sentence and miss the reasoned response before it.

I might as well reveal the interpretation I gave my umpires, which is: "Play on."

Carl,
I thought I detected a bit of a lop-sided grin in CoachJM's comment about coaches "making up rules" and umpires "enforcing actual rules". I enjoyed that fine understanding and wit.

Regarding your statement of "Play on", why would we not kill the the ball for a subsequent play (ie, R2 attempting home) once the initial play of R2 taking third base had ended, just in the chance that the catcher and the tripped player may yet be entangled?

Thanks.
mick


[/QUOTE]Good job on the irony. I'm sorry I missed yours. I can plead only that we're not generally so literate when we're arguing with coaches.

By "Play on," I simply meant there should be no penalty. I'm not convinced the ball should be dead. If we're going to treat the confusion at the dugout as incidental, not worthy of a penalty, why should we stop play?

R3, R2. F1 tries to pick off R2, and the shortstop and runner get tangled up. We don't stop play. We allow the defense to make an out, or the offense to score a run.

Let's just "Play on."

What'ya think?