|
|||
Quote:
Bob, If the catcher cannot throw to 3rd because of the batter but still has time to make a throw and retire R1 going to second, the interference is disregarded, regardless of what the batter did. You can throw whatever situation you want at Jim / Sarge / the PBUC staff, they will turn around and ask you the same question: Did the catchers first THROW retire a runner? Yes? Interference is disregarded. Last edited by BaBa Booey; Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:02am. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Yes, point at the batter and call interference. If the first throw doesn't retire ANY runner, enforce the interference. If the throw retires ANY runner, go back to work. When the coach says "Hey what about the interference?!" you tell him the first throw retired a runner so the INT is disregarded. He'll probably complain that he didn't get the runner at 3rd, but his team still recorded an out, and that's the way the rule is interpreted.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Play: R2 only, steal attempt. Batter clearly interfers with F2 attempt -- if fact he interferes so badly that F2 stops. Are you saying that JEAPU would let the play stand? That a throw is necessary for there to be interference? (I agree that there needs to be an *attempt* to throw, and it's easier to sell the interference if there is a throw.) _____ Forget a second throw. A poster who made it appear it was an academey student has led us to believe that one cannot call interference without a throw. That is not my recollection of Jimmy's or Sarge's position. |
|
|||
Quote:
My mistake on the R2 only question. There does not need to be a throw (as far as I can recall), but there should be and effort to make a throw. Then if the throw is not made because of an obvious act by the batter, enforce the interference. It is possible that they have changed their position on this, but that is how I remember it. |
|
|||
Quote:
I accept what you are saying, but I think the interpretation is inconsistent. If my play (R2 only) is interference, then I think the interference also happens in the OP at the same time and that "throw" was not successful so the "throw" to retire R1 "never happened." I think (or, more accurately thought) that JEAPU's interp is too literal on the word "throw." |
|
|||
Quote:
Bottom line is I had to enforce it the way PBUC wanted me to, and that was the interpretation they went with. |
|
|||
Quote:
A notle venture Tim, however, is that even possible to get Fed to change??
__________________
Its' not a matter of being right or wrong, it's a matter of working hard to get it right. |
|
|||
Quote:
This is true, but its also true that in other times the defense may want that out instead of that batter's out. Maybe its the 3rd out and they in the 8th spot in the order? In FED/NCAA where you're going to kill it once he can't get off that initial attempt and you have BI, it could burn the defense as well. Without an option on it (which I'm not advocating for), you could draw up situations where the penalty isn't equal and fair as the next situation. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time for Ya'll to teach me something: | Tim C | Baseball | 27 | Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:18am |
How can I teach my players to | harmbu | Baseball | 6 | Sat Sep 22, 2007 02:47am |
Is this what they teach in PRO School? | PeteBooth | Baseball | 5 | Tue May 29, 2007 11:26am |
Coach takes part-time job | Mark Padgett | Basketball | 5 | Wed Dec 17, 2003 02:15pm |
Mistake in NF test Part 1 - really, this time | Mark Padgett | Basketball | 1 | Mon Oct 04, 1999 04:50pm |