Interference or not

[mick]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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? [/QUOTE]

Carl,
I sense a slight difference between the plays.

On the pick off play, all the players are where they "should be" when the incidental contact is manifested; but on the pass ball, the player, who went on the trip last fall, was somewhere he "should not have been".

Given that the incidental contact with the catcher did not "apparently affect the play" at third, there is a potential (I didn't see the play very well.) that the catcher could have been disadvantaged by prolonged contact, by slight or severe injury or by otherwise having been hindered by the accident.

By not calling "Time", we have left open the door for additional ugliness due to an impotent act.

By killing the play, we have now protected that defense from a subsequent unfair disadvantage that may have been gained by an accidental player being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and we have ensured safety and fairness, with no need for toilet paper.

mick