|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
MRUMPIRE, I wouldn't be so presumptuous. Much better to let Auggie and the infallible PUngo there and codify the "interference supersedes the walk rule with lettered subsections that includes its enforcement even if the PU forgets the count and negates the rule that a runner has to do something INTENTIONAL to have interference called on him. Oh, and don't forget another subsection that says the PU should be able to strut his stuff and infallie judgment to be able to make an interference call BEFORE he decides whether the pitch was a ball or strike. Something like THAT would surely solve the problem for all time.
|
|
|||
@Durham
I have come to the conclusion that the commons sense and fair play ruling would be to ignore the "interference," but return R1 to second. In essence, treat this interference similar to back swing interference in the sense that we are not going to get an out, but we will not allow runners to advance.
__________________
Tony Carilli |
|
|||
I had alluded to the same thing, Tony. As I mentioned earlier, Jaksa/Roder has some examples of what they term "interference without a play." In the situation at hand, this would mean no out recorded, but R1 is returned to second.
|
|
|||
Quote:
That seems like a good, fair, rule, but I think it's farther afield given the current rule wording. That is, I wouldn't be surprised to see this CHANGED for next year (or whenever the rules cycle is). |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |