Rhubarb...

[lawump]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Ask Carlton Fisk those questions!

Yeah, "Larry" and "Barnett" are still both four letter words in my native neck-of-the-woods.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by lawump

Yeah, "Larry" and "Barnett" are still both four letter words in my native neck-of-the-woods.

Perhaps you would do well to read the interpretation still in force because of the Barnett call:

Specifically, professional baseball has interpreted Rule 7.09(l) as saying "a catcher trying to field a batted ball that remains in the immediate vicinity of the plate cannot be protected because of the right of the batter-runner to begin his advance to first. Barring an intentional action on the part of either player, contact in this instance is incidental, and is not interference..." (Jaksa/Roder Umpires' Manual, 1997 Edition. Pg. 57).

Boston fans do not make the rules.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Perhaps you would do well to read the interpretation still in force because of the Barnett call:

Specifically, professional baseball has interpreted Rule 7.09(l) as saying "a catcher trying to field a batted ball that remains in the immediate vicinity of the plate cannot be protected because of the right of the batter-runner to begin his advance to first. Barring an intentional action on the part of either player, contact in this instance is incidental, and is not interference..." (Jaksa/Roder Umpires' Manual, 1997 Edition. Pg. 57).

Boston fans do not make the rules.

Perhaps you would do well to realize that lawump was speaking "tongue-in-cheek," in accordance with OBR Rule 11.3(a)(1) which states that sarcasm runs wild on umpiring forums. I am quite certain that former professional umpire "lawump" is well aware of the proper interpretation.

[UMP25]

Be careful, Steve. You're talking to someone who believes Joe Morgan and Tim McCarver are among the most intelligent baseball people around.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Perhaps you would do well to read the interpretation still in force because of the Barnett call:

Specifically, professional baseball has interpreted Rule 7.09(l) as saying "a catcher trying to field a batted ball that remains in the immediate vicinity of the plate cannot be protected because of the right of the batter-runner to begin his advance to first. Barring an intentional action on the part of either player, contact in this instance is incidental, and is not interference..." (Jaksa/Roder Umpires' Manual, 1997 Edition. Pg. 57).

Boston fans do not make the rules.

We are all well aware of the reasoning behind Barnett's ruling! Especially those of us who were not only alive but present when the incident occurred! Once Barnett gave his explanation (which was heard over the roar of Carlton Fisk), the application seemed correct (but still painful). We really don't need J/R to tell us their blow hard explanation of a ruling that just about changed the face of baseball!