First Time for Me

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

No I'm not - You are admitting that standing in the box and not moving ON SOME GIVEN SITUATION can create INT on the batter. That's what I said. I didn't specify throw from the catcher, play at the plate, F2 trying to find the ball after dropping it - I simply stated that standing in the box and not moving does not make you immune. If you CAN have INT then where's the confusion. Immune means it cannot happen, period.

Most of us were discussing the OP.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

MIB: Here's what you said: "I look at it this way - Did the batter have time to react and get out of the way? If not (as in your sitch), we have nothing."

With respect to the OP (which is what you were referring to), that reasoning is flawed.

How? He didn't have time to react to anything - and the call is still correct - nothing. I didn't say it was perfect, it's how I look at it.

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Most of us were discussing the OP.

I was simply stating there are other situations that occur. There are people that take "he doesn't have to move" to every sitch - it's not true in every sitch.

I, too, commented on the OP - and took it a step farther and into "every" situatioin. Why is that so confusing?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

How? He didn't have time to react to anything - and the call is still correct - nothing. I didn't say it was perfect, it's how I look at it.

Nothing is the correct (non) call, but not because the batter didn't have time to react. It's because he didn't interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or by making make any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. In other words, it's not INT because he just stood there in the box. See 6.06(c)

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Nothing is the correct (non) call, but not because the batter didn't have time to react. It's because he didn't interfere with the catcher's fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or by making make any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. In other words, it's not INT because he just stood there in the box. See 6.06(c)

True - and I don't recall debating that point. Never said it wasn't INT because he didn't have time to react. If you inferred that, I apologize.

I do recall adding my perspective on how to possibly judge INT or not. Also recall stating it might not be the best method, but it works for me on the hard to decifer situations. It's overly simlplified I admit.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

True - and I don't recall debating that point. Never said it wasn't INT because he didn't have time to react. If you inferred that, I apologize.

I inferred it from your post #11

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Did the batter have time to react and get out of the way? If not (as in your sitch), we have nothing.

and your post #16

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

He didn't have time to react to anything - and the call is still correct - nothing.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Darien:

Just get under that bus again!!!