Incredible play / INT?

[thumpferee]

If I'm not mistaken, this was #1 on Sportscenter. When I first saw it, I thought the catcher intentionally tipped it to the pitcher, which if so, was a greater play than how it turned out already. I also thought about this forum and knew it would come up. My original thought was yes, only because he stopped and then delayed his obligation to run to first.

My question would be, what if the ball wasn't caught!

No hind-sight! What did you all really think when you saw it for the first time?

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

If I'm not mistaken, this was #1 on Sportscenter. When I first saw it, I thought the catcher intentionally tipped it to the pitcher, which if so, was a greater play than how it turned out already. I also thought about this forum and knew it would come up. My original thought was yes, only because he stopped and then delayed his obligation to run to first.

My question would be, what if the ball wasn't caught!

No hind-sight! What did you all really think when you saw it for the first time?

Caught or not, if it's int., it's from that instant.
If your asking about the play without INT, it's a fair ball and play on.

Hind sight, slow motion, waiving any other umpiring responsibilties and watching nothing but F2/BR; Int. BR slowed forcing F2 to deviate his path, by definition INT. Were this say a squibber on the ground, maybe PU see's something. Somebody asked "how far can the BR be from HP?" I'd say he was to far under different conditions, slide along the fence and say;

Real life and full speed when I first watched it, nothing. And still agree with that.

[jicecone]

Inter-what? Batter-runner, catcher and pitcher all doing what they were suppose to.

Sometimes it best to let the players play the game, and just umpire.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Inter-what? Batter-runner, catcher and pitcher all doing what they were suppose to.

Sometimes it best to let the players play the game, and just umpire.

Good Advice! +1