|
|||
Re: Hmm,
Quote:
Like I said Tim, I'm new, I don't know all the board intricacies of the board. Is there ever a point where you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt for my newbie feaux pas and judge me by what I post in the future? Eric |
|
|||
motion naturally associated with his pitch
Your flame-a-thon is amusing, but what I find more interesting is the scenerio where R3 is trying to steal home, F1 legally disengages, but delivers a throw to F2 that is in every manner (except for the disengagement) a "motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate" and batter hits that throw/pitch.
Batter could/should be in-on the play and is obligated not to interfer with it. F1 could help us all out by taking an extra step or something that makes the play NOT look like a "motion naturally associated with his pitch", but he may not have time to do so. Since the batter could/should know what is going on wrt R3, I think that I would absolve F1 of his alleged sin. F1 did all of these things: 1. made a motion naturally associated with a pitch; 2. had the wherewithall to recognize what was going on; 3. disengaged legally; and 4. did all that he could do to get an out. Given all these being done, I'd take the opportunity to take the out. Call no balk, batter interference. |
|
|||
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cripes,
Quote:
But, I have seen F1 step off, stand there for a second with his hands together staring at the runenr, and then the umpire(s) and coaches all yell "balk" because F1 didn't drop his hands "immediately" upon stepping off the rubber. It's not a stretch to see this happening just as (or even just because) F1 tried a pick-off move after stepping off and keeping the hands together. |
|
|||
Re: Cripes,
Quote:
He eventually separates them ... but not immediately. I believe I have read an interpretation somewhere that the pitcher only has to separate his hands BEFORE reengaging the rubber. David Emerling Memphis, TN |
|
|||
Re: Re: Cripes,
Quote:
|
Bookmarks |
|
|