The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 15, 2010, 02:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
(a) if the umpire judged that the runner was not intentionally reaching for the thrown ball, play on, no interference. If the runner is not looking back at the throw, it's hard to see how this could be INT.
A slight quibble on this. He needs to be intentionally interfering. He doesn't need to be intentionally "reaching for the thrown ball." Even reading F5's eyes and reaching up *could be* enough.

This (depending on the umpire configuration) is a good opportunity for game management. Address it before it becomes a problem
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Public Address announcer/ Play by play Terrapins Fan Basketball 34 Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:20pm
Force play or time play? Rita C Baseball 44 Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:12am
Force play or tag play dsbrooks1014 Baseball 3 Tue Apr 21, 2009 09:09pm
was a force play, became a tag play ? _Bruno_ Baseball 8 Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:13am
CBS play-by-play announcers: should they all be fired? David Clausi Basketball 6 Mon Mar 27, 2000 11:56pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1