![]() |
|
|||
The fact that you do not realize batter interference is a "delayed dead ball" situation precludes you from any further discussion in this thread. Please learn the rules before attempting to chide someone who does.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Let me be clear: THIS IS NOT BATTER INTERFERENCE.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
I never said it was.
This incident has to be either of the following: 1. Batter interference, which by rule it cannot be (though the PU's actions appear to indicate he was treating it a such). 2. Interference by a batter-runner or runner. In this case, the interference has to be intentional, which it's not. If it is not, then interference and the out should not—cannot—be called. If they were, then the incorrect ruling was, in fact, made. Jaksa/Roder has a very good explanation of what they refer to as "interference without a play." That seems to fit here much more appropriately. While the J/R manual is OBR, of course, we do know that where NCAA rules are not clear or silent, they defer to OBR for guidance and everything interpretation. |
|
|||
True, you keep on saying it's not and making that the basis of your argument... why do you chide me for "not knowing BI is DDB" when we're not talking about BI at all?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1.72: ... the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire, or spectator that denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable. 12.2.4: The batter-runner may not interfere with a fielder's attempt to throw... Yes ... 12.2.5 mentions intent - but 12.2.5 is not an exception to 12.2.4 and doesn't invalidate 12.2.4.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
That was my thought when I saw his post....a rose amongst thorns.
|
|
|||
And of course that makes him the final word, perfection personified.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Seems ironic to me that Tim wants to simply go with the word of the one NCAA Regional umpire who has posted (honestly ... I don't know who that is, nor do I know whether he's agreed with 25, me, or neither!)... when it's the ruling and judgement of 4 other NCAA regional umpires that have brought about the question. I don't think we can assume the 1 is right, since it's obvious we're not assuming the 4 were right...
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Au contraire. It's clear that the PU quickly realized it was ball four. His indicating this by flashing 4 fingers and commenting that it was ball four, followed by his not even acting on his initial interference call--he disregarded his call and the outcome entirely--make it obvious that his first actions were those of a PU calling batter interference.
Quote:
Regardless, as I said, if this is not batter interference, which it's not, then the only other possibility is interference by a batter-runner or runner, in which case any interference that hinders a fielder attempting to make a play off a thrown ball on an at-risk runner must be intentional (with the exception of Running Lane Interference on a dropped third strike). Was this B.I.? No Was this an intentional interference? No Clear conclusion: No penalty of an out should be or can be recorded. If one is to argue that the rules aren't very clear on this (and I submit they actually are, for the most part), then an umpire can employ the notion of "common sense and fair play." This is something the Jaksa/Roder manual does when it discussed possible interference without a play. Here's an example from that manual: Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
We're all human, from Little League to the Major Leagues. We all make mistakes, some minor, some major. Well, except, of course, for the Regional Umpire alluded to above. ![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
![]() I cannot cite a rule when no interference occurred. My contention is that if one is going to claim there was interference, it would have to be by a batter-runner or runner (here the B-R). The closest one would be 7-11-f; however, that refers to a play at the plate. Considering that there was no play being made on R1 in the situation at hand, again, the batter could not have been interfering with anyone. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Texas v. Nebraska end of game | john_faz | Football | 40 | Mon Dec 14, 2009 09:14am |
Kansas/Texas Game Sit. | wildcatter | Basketball | 14 | Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:53am |
Did anyone see the end of the A&M vs Texas game tonight. | mightyvol | Basketball | 50 | Fri Mar 02, 2007 04:55pm |
Texas Game | SamFanboy | Basketball | 12 | Mon Mar 29, 2004 09:49am |
MSU vs. Texas game | Zebra1 | Basketball | 4 | Mon Mar 31, 2003 03:20pm |