Suggested Reading Material

[SanDiegoSteve]

You are simply still wrong. The ruling was given in a timely fashion. You asked for an authoritive opinion, Josh emailed the Wendelstedts, they replied, GA Umpire posted the results. Game, Set, Match to us. You lose. Go home. Game Over.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

You are simply still wrong. The ruling was given in a timely fashion. You asked for an authoritive opinion, Josh emailed the Wendelstedts, they replied, GA Umpire posted the results. Game, Set, Match to us. You lose. Go home. Game Over.

Timely fashion. I am suppose to divulge the Wendelstedt Ruling within minutes of receipt.
3rd party provided Roder info which suggests otherwise. Have you even considered the Roder document? Please do tell.

JEA - if an overthrow should touch a coach, the umpire should determine if the coach used his best efforts to avoid the overthrow and/or fielder or whether his actions were palpably designed to interfere.

See Tee may concur with your assessment, but based on previous "ridiculous" statements and omissions of fact, previous actions speak for themselves.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

Timely fashion. I am suppose to divulge the Wendelstedt Ruling within minutes of receipt.
No continuation? 3rd party info, Roder suggests otherwise. Have you even considered the Roder document? Please do tell.

Okay, now I just plain don't understand WTF you're talking about. Pretty early in the day to be hitting the pipe, isn't it?

Originally Posted by SAump

JEA - if an overthrow should touch a coach, the umpire should determine if the coach used his best efforts to avoid the overthrow and/or fielder or whether his actions were palpably designed to interfere.

What if the on deck hitter didn't see the throw coming his way as he was clearing the bat? What if my aunt had balls? Would she be my uncle? We weren't there, so based on what the OP stated, there was no interference, and that's what Harry/Hunter said.