Tue Jun 12, 2012, 09:27am
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southern West Virginia
Posts: 146
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzy6900
I disagree that this play is the same as the Frisk/Armbruster play because neither Frisk nor Armbruster hesitated in what they were doing. Each moved immediately in the direction that they were supposed to go and this is why the ruling was made as it was.
There was another play similar about a year or so later in which the batter hesitated, then proceeded and made contact with F2. That was ruled as interference on the batter. Wish I could remember the players and umpire (all MLB).
In this stich, the batter hesitated and even took a step toward his dugout (which is behind him). Therefore, because of this hesitation, I would rule the batter interfered.
|
Ozzy,
Does this imply interference in all three instances?
|
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
